alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victoria Louise MEHIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40754.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 6, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Victoria Louise Mehis appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty-plea *858conviction of possessing with the intent to distribute approximately 45.85 kilograms of cocaine. She argues that the district court erroneously calculated her criminal history category for purposes of applying the United States Sentencing Guidelines by considering a prior, uncounseled misdemeanor conviction of possessing marijuana when assessing her criminal history points. She contends that her waiver of the right to counsel in that case was invalid because the district court failed to inform her that she was entitled to be represented during her guilty plea by court appointed counsel.

The records pertaining to Mehis’s conviction of possessing marijuana indicate that Mehis knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to be represented by counsel when she entered her guilty plea. *See Iowa v. Tovar,*541 U.S. 77, 88-94, 124 S.Ct. 1379, 158 L.Ed.2d 209 (2004). Accordingly, the district court did not misapply the Sentencing Guidelines by using Mehis’s prior conviction for purposes of determining her criminal history score.

The judgment of the district courts is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *858published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### SUBCHAPTER XLIX–A—SHAWNEE TRIBE STATUS
NUMBER 13-14-00052-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ROBERT MICHELENA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

and Motion for Temporary Relief.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes

Per Curiam Order

Relator, Robert Michelena, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for 

temporary relief in the above cause on January 23, 2014. The Court, having examined 

and fully considered the motion for temporary relief, is of the opinion that it should be 

CARRIED WITH THE CASE pending further order of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective 

until the case is finally decided.”). The Court requests that Monica Michelena, the real 

party in interest, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus in the offices of the 
2

Court on or before the expiration of the business day on January 31, 2014. See id. R. 

52.4, 52.8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

24th day of January, 2014.
§ 3106.72 Continuing obligation of an assignor or transferor. ( a ) The lessee or sublessee remains responsible for performing all obligations under the lease until the date the BLM approves an assignment of record title interest or transfer of operating rights.
( b ) After the BLM approves the assignment or transfer, the assignor or transferor will continue to be responsible for lease obligations that accrued before the approval date, whether or not such obligations were identified at the time of the assignment or transfer. This includes paying compensatory royalties for drainage. It also includes responsibility for plugging wells drilled and removing facilities installed or used before the effective date of the assignment or transfer.
§ 3602.27 When will BLM extend the term of a contract? BLM may grant a one-time extension of the contract not to exceed 1 year, if: ( a ) ( 1 ) For contracts with terms over 90 days, BLM receives your written request between 30 and 90 days before the contract expires; or
( 2 ) For contracts with terms of 90 days or less, BLM receives your written request not later than 15 days before the contract expires; and
( b ) You show in writing that the delay in removing the mineral materials was due to causes beyond your control and was not due to your fault or negligence.
PUBLIC LAW 108–444—DEC. 3, 2004 118 STAT. 2635

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2965:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Oct. 8, considered and passed Senate.

Nov. 17, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 108–444

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999 to modify the

termination date for mandatory price reporting.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

Section 942 of the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act

of 1999 (7 U.S.C. 1635 note; Public Law 106–78) is amended by

striking ‘‘terminate’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘terminate

on September 30, 2005.’’.

Approved December 3, 2004.

Dec. 3, 2004

[S. 2965]
§ 3422.1 Fair market value and maximum economic recovery. ( a ) Not less than 30 days prior to the publication of a notice of sale, the Secretary shall solicit public comments on fair market value (FMV) appraisal and the maximum economic recovery (MER) of the tract or tracts proposed to be offered and on factors that may affect these 2 determinations. BLM will publish the solicitation in the Federal Register and at least once per week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the sale. Proprietary data marked as confidential may be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management in response to the solicitation of public comments. Data so marked shall be treated in accordance with the laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of such information.
( b ) The authorized officer shall prepare a written report containing information on the mining method evaluation, estimated coal reserves by bed, coal quality assessment, royalty and lease bond recommendations and an evaluation of the public comments on the FMV and MER.
( c ) ( 1 ) The authorized officer shall not accept any bid that is less than the fair market value as determined by the Department.
( 2 ) Minimum bids shall be set on a regional basis and may be expressed in either dollars-per-acre or cents-per-ton. In no case shall the minimum bid be less than $100 per acre or its equivalent in cents-per-ton.
[47 FR 33140, July 30, 1982, as amended at 50 FR 8626, Mar. 4, 1985; 51 FR 18888, May 23, 1986; 64 FR 52243, Sept. 28, 1999]
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Terry Gabby, certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this amended annual report of LITFUNDING, Inc.;  2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a  material  fact  or  omit  to state a material fact necessary to make the statements  made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were  made,  not  misleading  with  respect  to  the period covered by this report;  3.   Based on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other financial information  included  in  this  report,  fairly  present  in  all material respects  the  financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the  registrant  as  of,  and  for,  the  periods presented in this report;  4.   The registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and  I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused such disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to  be  designed  under  our supervision,  to  ensure  that  material  information  relating to the registrant,  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us  by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which  this  report  is  being  prepared;  b)   evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's  disclosure controls  and  procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about  the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of  the  end  of  the  period  covered  by  this  report based on such evaluation;  and  c)   disclosed  in  this  report  any  change  in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most  recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the  case  of  an  annual  report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably  likely  to  materially  affect,  the registrant's internal control  over  financial  reporting;  and  5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to  the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent  functions):  a)   all significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in  the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are  reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,  process,  summarize  and  report  financial  information; and  b)   any fraud,  whether  or  not  material,  that  involves  management or other  employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in the registrant's internal  control  over  financial  reporting.    DATED  this  10th  day  of  May 2007.   /s/  Terry Gabby ------------------------------- Terry Gabby Chief Financial Officer
§ 3505.62 Under what conditions will BLM extend my prospecting permit? You must prove that: ( a ) You explored with reasonable diligence and were unable to determine the existence and workability of a valuable deposit covered by the permit. Reasonable diligence means that, in BLM's opinion, you drilled a sufficient number of holes or performed other comparable prospecting to explore the permit area within the time allowed; or
( b ) Your failure to perform diligent prospecting activities was due to conditions beyond your control.
San Mateo, CA
                                                                 March 29, 2000
                                                                 $300,000

                             SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

For  value  received,  the  undersigned,  Hypermedia  Communications,   Inc.,  a
California  corporation  ("Borrower") promises to pay MK GVD Fund ("Lender") the
principal sum of three hundred thousand dollars  ($300,000),  with interest from
the date hereof at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum,  which amount shall be
secured  by all of the  assets  of  Borrower.  Said  principal  shall be due and
payable on demand by  Lender,  which  demand may be made at any time,  but in no
event shall the principal be paid later than one hundred eighty (180) days after
the date of this Note. This Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

In the event of liquidation,  merger, sale, or winding up of the company, Lender
shall be entitled to receive,  prior and in  preference  to any other holders of
debt or equity securities,  (except as provided in item 1. below), the principal
value of this Note plus accrued interest.

The  following is a statement of the rights of the Borrower of this Note and the
conditions to which this Note is subject,  to which the Borrower and Lender,  by
the acceptance of this Note agree:

         1.  Security  Interest  - Borrower  hereby  grants to Lender a security
interest  in all assets of  Borrower  to secure  repayment  of the  indebtedness
represented  by this Note.  Borrower  hereby  represents and agrees that it will
take all actions  contemplated above including the execution of a UCC1 financing
statement,  which for the purposes of such  execution,  Borrower hereby appoints
Lender as its attorney-in-fact to execute such UCC1 financing statement.

         2. Attorneys' Fees - If any action or proceeding  shall be commenced to
enforce  this Note or any right  arising  in  connection  with  this  Note,  the
prevailing  party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover from
the other party the reasonable  attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred by
such  prevailing   party  in  connection  with  such  action  or  proceeding  or
negotiation to avoid such action or proceeding.  In the event that any provision
of this Note should be deemed unlawful or unenforceable, such provision shall be
struck and the remainder  hereof shall be enforced to the fullest  extent of the
law.

         3.  Governing  Law - This Note is  issued  in and shall be  interpreted
under the laws of the State of California.

Issued this 29 day of March, 2000.

                                      Hypermedia Communications, Inc.



                                      By: __________________

                                      Title: ________________
#### § 3501.16 Does my permit or lease grant me an exclusive right to develop the lands covered by the permit or lease?

No. Your permit or lease gives you an exclusive right to the mineral, but not to the lands. BLM may allow other uses or disposal of the lands, including leasing of other minerals, if those uses or disposals will not unreasonably interfere with your operation. If BLM issues other permits or leases covering the lands contained within your permit or lease, they will contain suitable stipulations for simultaneous operation based on consideration of safety, environmental protection, conservation, ultimate recovery of the resource, and other factors. You must also make all reasonable efforts to avoid interference with other authorized uses. In cases where the date of the lease is used to determine priority for development and a lease is renewed, BLM will use the effective date of the original lease to determine priority for development.
AFS-10-396-E 

Sep 30 2010 

 Exemption No. 6570I 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2000-8454 

Mr. Juan de Mesa 

United Airlines, Inc. 

7401 Martin Luther King Boulevard 

Denver, CO 80207 

Dear Mr. de Mesa: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 6570, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated September 13, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of United Airlines, Inc. (United), for an extension of Exemption No. 6570, 

as amended. That exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations permits United to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of 

an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is 

performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and landing 

when completing initial or upgrade training as specified in § 121.424. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to United. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 6570, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 
 2

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 6570, as amended, to 

January 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 6570, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 6570. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
### §1359. Disposition of qualifying vessels

#### (a) In general

If any qualifying vessel operator sells or disposes of any qualifying vessel in an otherwise taxable transaction, at the election of such operator, no gain shall be recognized if any replacement qualifying vessel is acquired during the period specified in subsection (b), except to the extent that the amount realized upon such sale or disposition exceeds the cost of the replacement qualifying vessel.

#### (b) Period within which property must be replaced

The period referred to in subsection (a) shall be the period beginning one year prior to the disposition of the qualifying vessel and ending—

(1) 3 years after the close of the first taxable year in which the gain is realized, or

(2) subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Secretary, on such later date as the Secretary may designate on application by the taxpayer.

Such application shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

#### (c) Application of section to noncorporate operators

For purposes of this section, the term "qualifying vessel operator" includes any person who would be a qualifying vessel operator were such person a corporation.

#### (d) Time for assessment of deficiency attributable to gain

If a qualifying vessel operator has made the election provided in subsection (a), then—

(1) the statutory period for the assessment of any deficiency, for any taxable year in which any part of the gain is realized, attributable to such gain shall not expire prior to the expiration of 3 years from the date the Secretary is notified by such operator (in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe) of the replacement qualifying vessel or of an intention not to replace, and

(2) such deficiency may be assessed before the expiration of such 3-year period notwithstanding the provisions of section 6212(c) or the provisions of any other law or rule of law which would otherwise prevent such assessment.

#### (e) Basis of replacement qualifying vessel

In the case of any replacement qualifying vessel purchased by the qualifying vessel operator which resulted in the nonrecognition of any part of the gain realized as the result of a sale or other disposition of a qualifying vessel, the basis shall be the cost of the replacement qualifying vessel decreased in the amount of the gain not so recognized; and if the property purchased consists of more than one piece of property, the basis determined under this sentence shall be allocated to the purchased properties in proportion to their respective costs.

(Added Pub. L. 108–357, title II, §248(a), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1456.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to taxable years beginning after Oct. 22, 2004, see section 248(c) of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as an Effective Date of 2004 Amendments note under section 56 of this title.
§ 3736.1 Placer locator to conduct no mining operations for 60 days. ( a ) The Act in section 2(b) provides in part as follows: The locator of a placer claim under this Act, however, shall conduct no mining operations for a period of sixty days after the filing of a notice of location pursuant to section 4 of this Act. If the Secretary of the Interior, within sixty days from the filing of the notice of location, notifies the locator by registered mail of the Secretary's intention to hold a public hearing to determine whether placer mining operations would substantially interfere with other uses of the land included within the placer claim, mining operations on that claim shall be further suspended until the Secretary has held the hearing and has issued an appropriate order. The order issued by the Secretary of the Interior shall provide for one of the following: (1) a complete prohibition of placer mining; (2) a permission to engage in placer mining upon the condition that the locator shall, following placer operations, restore the surface of the claim to the condition in which it was immediately prior to those operations; or (3) a general permission to engage in placer mining. No order by the Secretary with respect to such operations shall be valid unless a certified copy is filed in the same State or county office in which the locator's notice of location has been filed, in compliance with the United States mining laws.
( b ) Upon receipt of a notice of location of a placer claim filed in accordance with § 3734.1 for land subject to location under the act, a determination will be made by the authorized officer of the Bureau of Land Management as to whether placer mining operations on the land may substantially interfere with other uses thereof. If it is determined that placer operations may substantially interfere with other uses, a notice of intention to hold a hearing will be sent to each of the locators by registered or certified mail within 60 days from date of filing of the location notice.
[35 FR 9737, June 13, 1970]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL LAWRENCE BRANCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:05-cr-00016-CCB-1; 1:10-cv-00079-CCB)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lawrence Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lawrence Branch appeals the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from 

judgment with respect to the denial of his previously filed 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that Branch’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion,

but was, in substance, a successive § 2255 motion. See United 

States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2005); see also

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005) (explaining how 

to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized 

successive habeas motion). Branch therefore is not required to 

obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district 

court’s order. McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. In the absence of 

prefiling authorization from this court, the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to hear Branch’s successive § 2255 motion. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

Additionally, we construe Branch’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on 

either: 

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 
3

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or 

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Branch’s claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion and affirm the district court’s order. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### PART II—CONTRIBUTIONS, DISTRIBUTIONS, AND TRANSFERS

Subpart
A.
Contributions to a partnership.
B.
Distributions by a partnership.
C.
Transfers of interests in a partnership.
D.
Provisions common to other subparts.