alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4947

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JUAN CARLOS MEJIA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:08-cr-00005-nkm-2)

Submitted: August 21, 2009 Decided: September 10, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Randy V. Cargill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Juan Carlos Mejia was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to distribute less than 500 grams of methamphetamine (Count 1), and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine (Count 2). On appeal, Mejia argues: (1) that the district court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial, and (2) the district court erred by sentencing him based on greater drug amounts than found by the jury. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review a district court’s refusal to grant a new trial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Huggins , 191 F.3d 532, 536 (4th Cir. 1999). Mejia argues that the prosecutor asked a question that impermissibly impinged on his right to remain silent in violation of Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610 (1976). We agree with the district court that the facts of the instant case are very similar to those discussed in Greer v. Miller , 483 U.S. 756, 764-65 (1987), and thus do not violate Doyle . Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court for denying Mejia’s motion on that basis. Huggins , 191 F.3d at 536.
After United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a district court’s sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, , 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (providing review standard). Despite an advisory

23 Sentencing Guidelines range of 188-235 months, Mejia was sentenced to 150 months imprisonment for each count to be served concurrently. We find no significant procedural error, id. , or substantive error, United States v. Evans , 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008), in Mejia’s sentence. Thus, we find the sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Pauley , 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that reasonableness review focuses on whether a sentencing court abused its discretion when imposing a sentence). Accordingly, we affirm Mejia’s convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
### §1101. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Aug. 8, 1947, ch. 519, title I, §101, 61 Stat. 922; May 29, 1956, ch. 342, §§1–4, 70 Stat. 217; June 25, 1959, Pub. L. 86–70, §4, 73 Stat. 141; July 6, 1960, Pub. L. 86–592, §4, 74 Stat. 331; Oct. 14, 1971, Pub. L. 92–138, §2, 85 Stat. 379, related to definitions and expired on Dec. 31, 1974.

A prior section, act Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 898, title I, §101, 50 Stat. 903, relating to similar subject matter, expired on Dec. 31, 1947.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward Campbell, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for assignment of counsel and for other relief, denied. The appeal is from an order denying, without a hearing, appellant’s *coram nobis*application. Therefore, appellant either has in his possession a copy of the original papers to be used in the consideration of this appeal, or has full knowledge of the contents of such papers. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 17, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00118

- CR

Steven ROBLES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR4962

- W1

Honorable Jennifer Pe ñ a , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF JURISDICTION. Appellant’s motion to obtain records and motion for a stay in

abeyance are DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on April 17, 2019

.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on t his 17th day of April, 2019

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
§ 776.70 Jurisdiction. ( a ) All covered attorneys shall be governed by this part.
( b ) ( 1 ) Many covered USG attorneys practice outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction in which they are licensed. While covered attorneys remain subject to the governing authority of the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice, they are also subject to subpart B of this part.
( 2 ) When covered USG attorneys are engaged in the conduct of Navy or Marine Corps legal functions, whether serving the Navy or Marine Corps as a client or serving an individual client as authorized by the Navy or Marine Corps, the provisions contained in subpart B of this part supersede any conflicting rules applicable in jurisdictions in which the covered attorney may be licensed. However, covered attorneys practicing in State or Federal civilian court proceedings will abide by the rules adopted by that State or Federal civilian court during the proceedings. As for covered non-USG attorneys practicing under the supervision of the JAG, violation of the provisions contained in subpart B of this part may result in suspension from practice in DoN proceedings.
( 3 ) Covered non-USG attorneys, Reservists, or Retirees (acting in their civilian capacity) who seek to provide legal services in any DoN matter under JAG cognizance and supervision, may be precluded from such practice of law if, in the opinion of the JAG (as exercised through this rule) the attorney's conduct in any venue renders that attorney unable or unqualified to practice in DoN programs or proceedings.
#### In the Matter of John Lamula, Appellant, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Order, entered August 27, 1963 . sustaining special appearance of objectors and denying application, unanimously affirmed, without costs. There was a failure to join the objectors as parties and serve them as such. There was a complete failure to serve one of the two objectors, and the other -was served in another capacity. Indeed, the order to show cause mistakenly was drafted to direct service not on the objectors, service being directed to be made on the Committee on Vacancies. It was mere coincidence that one of the committee was also one of the objectors. The Election Law requirements are strict as to service and joinder of'indispensable parties. (See *Matter of Swan*v. *Cohen,*179 Mise. 69, affd. 262 App. Div. 956, affd. 286 N. Y. 678.) This is unfortunate in a case where actual notice was received by the parties affected, but traditional interpretation offers insufficient leeway. *781Despite the practical disenfranchisement, the order must be affirmed; but leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is granted. Concur —Botein, P, J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
INL CAPABILITY 

Focused Roadmapping, Project 

Maturity, and Informed Decision Making 

lanning and decision-making represent important challenges for any program or project. 

Whether it involves incremental improvements or significant breakthroughs, there 

typically are uncertainties and interrelationships that complicate the environment of 

competing priorities and limited funding. Focused Roadmaps are used to identify precise 

project objectives and requirements, create a consensus vision of project needs, focus resources, 

facilitate informed decision making, provide a structured, defensible, decision-based project plan, 

accelerate application of new technologies, expedite new systems deployment, and minimize 

project costs and schedules. 

Building on core roadmapping principles that have guided Fortune 500 companies like Intel and 

Motorola, systems engineers at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) have developed a specialized 

planning, decision analysis, and roadmapping capability that provides the rigor and understanding 

needed for decision-makers to focus on critical uncertainties, make informed decisions, and drive 

a project to successful completion. Further, the INL’s advanced roadmapping provides a means to 

measure the relative merit of technologies, accelerate application of new designs, minimize project 

costs and schedules, and provide a defensible argument for acquisition choices. 

A promising feature of the INL roadmapping capability is the development and application of a 

systematic Project Readiness Assessment Tool (PRAT) that can: 

• Assist projects in assessing, assigning, monitoring, and managing overall project 

readiness. 

• Enable consistent application of risk management across project entities. 

• Provide a basis for identifying and managing appropriate project cost and schedule risks 

and contingencies in light of technology, design, and overall project readiness levels. 

This capability is being developed 

using existing Technology Readiness 

Level (TRL), Design Readiness Level, 

(DRL), and Project Readiness Level 

(PRL) concepts, and by leveraging 

INL experience with an existing 

Readiness Level assessment tool, 

project risk databases, computer-based 

visualization tools, and decision 

analysis readiness and roadmapping 

processes. 

In short, the INL roadmapping 

capability allows for planning and 

assessment of project readiness and 

for acquisition teams to make costeffective technology decisions in the 

face of project complexities. 

Technical

Contacts 

Ron Klingler 

(208) 526-0183 

ron.klingler@inl.gov 

Lori Braase 

(208) 526-7763 

lori.braase@inl.gov 

Robert Caliva 

(208) 526-4653 

robert.caliva@inl.gov 

John Collins 

(208) 526-3372 

john.collins@inl.gov

Web Page 

http://www.inl.gov/syseng 

P
#### Letta K. Brown, as Guardian ad Litem of Vicki Brown, an Infant, Appellant, v. Sibley, Lindsay *&*Curr Company et al., Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. All concur, except Halpern, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and a new trial in the following memorandum: The plaintiff established a prima facie ease and therefore the dismissal was improper. *(Stevens*v. *O’Neill, 51*App. Div. 364, affd. 169 N. Y. 375; *McLoughlin*v. *New York Edison Co.,*252 N. Y. 202, 205; 1 Harper & James, Law of Torts, p. 229; cf. *Gill*v. *Montgomery Ward & Co.,*284 App. Div. 36.) *Blumenfeld*v. *Harris*(3 A D 2d 219, affd. 3 N Y 2d 905) upon which the trial court relied, is distinguishable on its facts. The Appellate Division said: “plaintiff, an employee of defendants, freely and voluntarily, and in the course of his regular duties entered the back room of the store in which he claims he was detained unlawfully ”. Furthermore, that ease was tried without a jury. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss as a matter of law at the close of the ease. The issue of imprisonment was decided "by the trial court as a question of fact in favor of the plaintiff; the trial court’s findings were reversed and the issue was decided as a question of fact in favor of the defendants by the Appellate Division and new findings were accordingly made. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s ease in an action (1) for damages for alleged false imprisonment and (2) to recover money alleged to have been paid to defendants by plaintiff under duress.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
§ 776.52 Respect for rights of third persons. ( a ) In representing a client, a covered attorney shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
( b ) [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 1559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00170]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #16836 and #16837; MISSISSIPPI Disaster Number 
MS-00134]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Mississippi

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-
4576--DR), dated 12/31/2020.
    Incident: Hurricane Zeta.
    Incident Period: 10/28/2020 through 10/29/2020.

DATES: Issued on 12/31/2020.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/01/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/01/2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 12/31/2020, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Perry, 
Stone, Wayne.
The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.750
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.750
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.750
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 168368 
and for economic injury is 168370.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Cynthia Pitts,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021-00170 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
§ 750.10 Claims: Settlement and release. ( a ) *Fully and partially approved claims.* When a claim is approved for payment in the amount claimed, settlement agreement may not be necessary. When a federal tort, military, or non-scope claim is approved for payment in a lesser amount than that claimed, the claimant must indicate in writing a willingness to accept the offered amount in full settlement and final satisfaction of the claim. In the latter instance, no payment will be made until a signed settlement agreement has been received.
( b ) *Release.* ( 1 ) Acceptance by the claimant of an award or settlement made by the Secretary of the Navy or designees, or the Attorney General or designees, is final upon acceptance by the claimant. Acceptance is a complete release by claimant of any claim against the United States by reason of the same subject manner. Claimant's acceptance of an advance payment does not have the same effect.
( 2 ) The claimant's acceptance of an award or settlement made under the provisions governing the administrative settlement of Federal tort claims or the civil action provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1346(b) also constitutes a complete release of any claim against any employee of the Government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.
[57 FR 4722, Feb. 7, 1992, as amended at 72 FR 53419, Sept. 19, 2007]
§ 865.115 Issuance of decisions following discharge review. ( a ) The applicant and counsel or representative, if any, shall be provided with a copy of the decisional document and of any further action in review. The applicant (and counsel, if any) shall be notified of the availability of the complaint process in accordance with § 865.121 of this subpart and of the right to appeal to the Board for the Correction of Military Records. Final notification of decisions shall be issued to the applicant with a copy to the counsel or representative, if any.
( b ) Notification to applicants with copies to counsel or representatives, shall normally be made through the U.S. Postal Service. Such notification shall consist of a notification of the decision, together with a copy of the decisional document.
( c ) Notification of HQ AFMPC/MPCDOAl shall be for the purpose of appropriate action and inclusion of review matter in the military records. Such notification shall bear appropriate certification of completeness and accuracy.
( d ) Actions on review by Secretarial Reviewing Authority, when occurring, shall be provided to the applicant and counsel or representative in the same manner as the notification of the review decision.
Assessing	the	Effect	of	Five	Gasoline	Properties	on	Exhaust	Emissions	from	LightDuty	Vehicles	certified	to	Tier-2	Standards

Analysis	of	Data	from	EPA	Phase	3

(EPAct/V2/E-89)

Appendix		O.3

Model	Fitting	Information	for

Benzene (Bag	1)

This appendix summarizes model fitting for Bag-1 Benzene. Model-fitting techniques and approaches 

summarized in Section 8.7. Features of the data and modeling for this compound are listed below.

Fuel-parameter matrix: REDUCED

Media contamination: NO

No. measurements: 176

No. censored values: 0

Modeling approach: MIXED MODEL

Estimated Dependent Variable model: NO
Models fit for Bag-1 Benzene

Model Term Notation Model

Main Effects (Full) MM2 MM3

etOH Ze ● ×

Arom Za ● ● ●

RVP Zr

T50 Z5 ● ● ×

T90 Z9 ● ×

Fitting history for Bag-1 Benzene – with “MM3” selected as best fit model.

Fit Parameters Test with respect to

Full

Test with respect 

to

Previous Model

Model p -2lnL BIC

1 Dev.1

d Pr>χ

2 Dev. d Pr>χ2

Main 

Effects

5 248.12 267.08

MM2 3 248.27 261.81 0.144 2 0.93

MM3 2 250.02 260.85 1.89 3 0.59 1.75 1 0.19

1 A lower value indicates a better fit. 1 The deviation is the difference in

the -2loglik statistics for the 

nested and reference models,

respectively, per Error! Reference source not 

found..

Coefficients and Type-III Tests of Effect for the Full and Best-Fit Models – Benzene (Bag 1).

Effect Full Model Best-Fit Model (MM3)

Estimate Std.Err. d.f. t-value Pr>t Estimate Std.Err. d.f. t-value Pr>t

Intercept -4.1019 0.1392 15.07 -29.48 <0.0001 -4.1074 0.1391 15.05 -29.52 <0.0001

Ze

-0.004685 0.03704 161.12 -0.126 0.90

Za 0.4056 0.03389 161.17 11.97 <0.0001 0.4032 0.03284 161.20 12.28 <0.0001

Z5 0.04142 0.03789 161.15 1.09 0.28

Z9 0.01133 0.03255 161.20 0.35 0.73

2  veh 0.2741 0.2739

2 

0.1873 0.1896
**Exhibit 11****Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings**Three Months Ended

Twelve Months EndedOctober 31,

October 31,2004

2003

2004

2003(in thousands, except per share amount)Basic

Diluted

Basic

Diluted

Basic

Diluted

Basic

DilutedNet income

$
2,281

$
2,281

$
574

$
574

$
6,269

$
6,269

$
462

$
462Weighted average sharesoutstanding


5,969


5,969


5,578


5,578


5,784


5,784


5,582


5,582Assumed issuances understock options plans


--


294


--


34


--


242


--


--5,969


6,263


5,578


5,612


5,784


6,026


5,582


5,582Income per common share

$
0.38

$
0.36

$
0.10

$
0.10

$
1.08

$
1.04

$
0.08

$
0.08
#### In the Matter of Charles B. Towns Hospital et al., Appellants, v. Ray E. Trussell, as Commissioner of Hospitals of the City of New York, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs, upon conditions hereinafter mentioned. The parties now agree and we hold that the petitioners may not operate their hospital without a license issued by the Commissioner of Hospitals of the City of New York. But, having operated a hospital for sometime prior to 1956, they are entitled to a license upon proper compliance with the provisions of the New York City Hospital Code and Regulations and any properly issued variances to the same. (See Social Welfare Law, § 35-b.) The stay contained in the order to show cause, rendered May 7, 1964, by the Presiding Justice of this court, is continued until July 10, 1964, on compliance with the conditions therein specified and upon the further conditions that the petitioners shall, on or before such date, duly make applications for such variances as are required to render the hospital in full compliance with the requirements of the Hospital Code and Regulations, and, on or before such date, duly make application for a license. In the event such applications are made within the time specified, the stay shall be continued until such applications are granted or denied. Settle order on notice. Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ. [42 Misc 2d 902.]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Barbara S. Roosevelt v. Philip J. Roosevelt.

• Motion for an order directing the respective parties herein to refrain from printing in the record on appeal certain exhibits granted insofar as to dispense with printing in the record on appeal of Exhibits F, J, 0,1, 2, 3, 8, 9(a), (b), (e), 11,12, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27 on condition that *985the originals of said exhibits are filed with this court on or before the Wednesday preceding the first day of the term for which the appeal is noticed for argument.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6632

ROGER T. CLIFTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE DEEDS, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT

COURT; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF

VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-527-R)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 10, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcia Gail Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C., Atlanta,

Georgia, for Appellant. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger T. Clifton seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Clifton v. Deeds, No. CA-97-527-R

(W.D. Va. Apr. 17, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED