alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50378 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTONIO VASQUEZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Antonio Vasquez-Cuevas, also known as Guadalupe Esparza-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1863-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Antonio VasquezSanchez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Murillo-Lopez , 444 F.3d 337, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that a California conviction for burglary of an inhabited dwelling house was equivalent to burglary of a dwelling and therefore was a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, and by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision andNo. 05-50378 -2- not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          772008
<SECURITIES>                                   5035688
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3161343
<ALLOWANCES>                                    292000
<INVENTORY>                                    5316948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              15473454
<PP&E>                                         7406166
<DEPRECIATION>                                  328938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                34060105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3919284
<BONDS>                                       16038580
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         22759
<OTHER-SE>                                    13578482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  34060105
<SALES>                                       13604340
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              13604340
<CGS>                                          9191243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3881395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1752730
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                292000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              775762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1221028)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (490000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (731028)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (731028)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)
        


</TABLE>
#### § 3.82 Procedures for salary offset: types of collection.

A debt will be collected in a lump-sum or in installments. Collection will be by lump-sum collection unless the employee is financially unable to pay in one lump-sum, or if the amount of the debt exceeds 15 percent of disposable pay for an ordinary pay period. In these cases, deduction will be by installments, as specified in § 3.83.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 1595Wynkoop Street DENVER, CO 80202-1129 Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.gov/region08**~. .~"~.:~)~** **r~l,** 

### 0 i")r)A1 : ;. \." .;. '.i b' Ld 

### l ,

Ref: 8P-AR

Mr. Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota Attorney General Office ofAttorney General 600 E. Boulevard Ave. Dept. 125 SWtc ofNorth Dakota Bismarck. North Dakota 58505

Re: Your Request for Extension ofComment Period re North Dakota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport ofPollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze (Proposed Action)

Dear Mr. Stenehjem:

Thank you for your lettcr ofOctober 25. 2011. requesting a 30-day cxtension to the public comment period f()r the U.S. Environmcntal Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed action referenced above. We have thoroughly considered your request and we are unable to grant it. The deadline for submitting writtcn comments remains November 21. 2011.

Based on the scope ofourproposed action. we considerthe current 60-day comment period to be reasonable for the following reasons. first. we have provided for a 60-day comment period. which is double the length ofthe 30-daycomment period the EPA typically provides on state implementation plan actions. In addition. while the 60 days runs from publication. we posted our proposed action on our website and notified North Dakotaot1icials ofits availability on our website the day it was signed and 20 days bef()re it \vas published in the Federal Register. Atthe Governor's and your request. we also extended ourpublic hearing in Bismarck from /()ur hours to 14 hours overtwo consecutive days. Finally. we are subject to two separate consent decree deadlines that require the EPA's action by January 26. 20]2 and February 9. 20]2. respectively. Ifwe were to extend the November 21. 20] I deadline. we would leave ourselves with insufficient time to consider and respond to all public comments. including those from the state ofNorth Dakota. As it is. we will be facing a considerable challenge to meet these deadlines.Ill' I '

. bl' I .­ you 1<lVC yucstlOns conccrnmg our pu Ie comment process, p ease contact me. or your stalj may wish to contact Carl Daly. our Air Program Director at 0(3) 312-64I(1. or Jonah Staller. in lour ()jlicc

# or**Re~ional** Counsel at (303) 312-6855. Sincerely.**~James** B. Martin Regional Administrator

..
cc: David Olatt (Environmental Director. NDDI!) Terry O'Clair (Director. ND DAQ)

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BOBBI BOLTON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cv307-RH/WCS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

CORRECTIONS OFFICER JEFFREY

LINTON,

Defendant.

 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that GARY LEE PRINTY hereby enters his appearance

as counsel on behalf of Defendant, JEFFREY LINTON, in this cause and requests to be

listed in the Court file as counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Linton. All notices, pleadings or

other documents and communications should be directed to the undersigned. 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of

Appearance has been furnished by U.S. Mail/FAX Transmission/Hand Delivery to James

Vernon Cook, Attorney for Plaintiff, Law Office of James V. Cook, 314 W. Jefferson St.,

P.O. Box 10021 [32302], Tallahassee, FL 32301-1608, FAX No. (850) 561-0836, and to

Robert Del Stinson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Defendant USA, Office of the U.S.
2

Attorney, Northern District of Florida, 111 N. Adams St., 4 Flr., Tallahassee, FL 32301, th

FAX No. (850) 942-8448, this 30 day of June 2004. th

Respectfully submitted, 

/s Gary Lee Printy 

GARY LEE PRINTY 

FL BAR NO. 363014 

THE LAW OFFICE OF GARY LEE PRINTY

1804 Miccosukee Commons Dr., Suite 200 

Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5471

Telephone: (850) 877-7299 

FAX: (850) 877-2211

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

JEFFREY LINTON
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 4904** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANTHONY SCOTT MILLER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Beckley

. Irene C. Berger , District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr - 00078

- 1 )

Submitted : February 26, 2013 Decided: March 22, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Jennifer L. Rada , As sistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Scott Miller appeals the district court judgment imposing a sentence of eight months’ imprison ment and a thirty

- year term of supervised release following the revocation of Miller’s supervised release term. On appeal, Miller challenges a special condition of supervised release requiring him to undergo a psychosexual evaluation and to participate in any recommended treatment program. We affirm. District courts are afforded broad latitude in imposing conditions of supervised release, which we review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Worley , 685 F.3d 404, 407 (4 th Cir. 2012). Although a pa rticular condition of supervised release need not be connected to the underlying offense, id. , the sentencing court must provide an explanation for the conditions it imposes. United Stat e s v. Armel , 585 F.3d 182, 186 (4 th Cir. 2009). Miller challenges t he special condition requiring psychosexual evaluation and compliance with treatment recommendations, arguing that his underlying conviction for failing to register and update registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ( “SORNA”), 18
U.S.C. § 2250 (2006), does not involve actual sexual misconduct , and that his only sex offense conviction occurred in 2003. In imposing the special condition of supervised release, the3 district court took into account that Miller’s underlying conviction was a SORNA violation, and considered his history and characteristics, including his admission to his probation officer that he had masturbated to images of minors. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the district cour t’s imposition of the special condition of supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before this C ourt and a rgument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[106th Congress Public Law 218]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ218.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 345]]

Public Law 106-218
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 2201 C Street, Northwest, 
 in the District of Columbia, currently headquarters for the Department 
 of State, as the ``Harry S Truman Federal Building''. <<NOTE: June 20, 
                         2000 -  [H.R. 3639]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 22 USC 2713 note.>> DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 2201 C Street, Northwest, in the 
District of Columbia, currently headquarters for the Department of 
State, shall be known and designated as the ``Harry S Truman Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 22 USC 2713 and note.>> REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harry S Truman 
Federal Building''.

    Approved June 20, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3639:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            May 23, considered and passed House.
            June 8, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:90cr4010-WS

LEONIDEZ MENDEZ HINOJOSA,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 274)

docketed March 25, 2013. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

motion to set aside judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) be denied. The defendant has filed

objections (doc. 258) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, including the defendant's objections and the earlier

report and recommendation (doc. 226) that led to the judgment now being challenged,

this court has determined that the recent report and recommendation (doc. 274) should

be adopted. As noted by the magistrate judge, the defendant plainly states in his Rule

60(b) motion: "The petitioner's current motion . . . should be viewed as a motion to set

aside the original judgment." 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 274) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.
Page 2 of 2

2. The defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion (doc. 258) is hereby summarily

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of May , 2013.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 4:90cr4010-WS
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 5 Filed 08/27/01 Page 1 of 7
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 5 Filed 08/27/01 Page 2 of 7
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 5 Filed 08/27/01 Page 3 of 7
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 5 Filed 08/27/01 Page 4 of 7
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 5 Filed 08/27/01 Page 5 of 7
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 5 Filed 08/27/01 Page 6 of 7
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 5 Filed 08/27/01 Page 7 of 7
#### DONOVAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF OSWEGO et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 10, 1906.)

Action by Dennis Donovan against the city of Oswego and others.

No opinion. Motion to amend order of reversal granted.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00026

- CV

STUDIO E ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIORS, INC.

, Appellant

v.

Emily LEHMBERG

, Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 10649 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is REVERSED

and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of appeal are taxed against appellee.

SIGNED April 17, 2019.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
§ 331.19 Notification of theft, loss, or release. ( a ) An individual or entity must immediately notify APHIS or CDC upon discovery of the theft or loss of a select agent or toxin. Thefts or losses must be reported even if the select agent or toxin is subsequently recovered or the responsible parties are identified. ( 1 ) The theft or loss of a select agent or toxin must be reported by telephone, facsimile, or e-mail. The following information must be provided: ( i ) The name of the select agent or toxin and any identifying information (*e.g.*, strain or other characterization information);
( ii ) An estimate of the quantity stolen or lost;
( iii ) An estimate of the time during which the theft or loss occurred;
( iv ) The location (building, room) from which the theft or loss occurred; and
( v ) The list of Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies to which the individual or entity reported, or intends to report, the theft or loss.
( 2 ) A completed APHIS/CDC Form 3 must be submitted within 7 calendar days.
( b ) An individual or entity must notify APHIS or CDC immediately upon discovery of a release of a select agent or toxin outside of the primary barriers of the biocontainment area. ( 1 ) The release of a select agent or toxin must be reported by telephone, facsimile, or e-mail. The following information must be provided: ( i ) The name of the select agent or toxin and any identifying information (*e.g.*, strain or other characterization information);
( ii ) An estimate of the quantity released;
( iii ) The time and duration of the release;
( iv ) The location (building, room) from which the release occurred; and
( v ) The number of individuals potentially exposed at the entity;
( vi ) Actions taken to respond to the release; and
( vii ) Hazards posed by the release.
( 2 ) A completed APHIS/CDC Form 3 must be submitted within 7 calendar days.
[70 FR 13278, Mar. 18, 2005, as amended at 77 FR 61077, Oct. 5, 2012]
Overcoming Barriers to Medical Equipment

Liz Persaud

Georgia Tech / Tools for Life

May 8, 2012

Medical Diagnosis

 Muscular Dystrophy, Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 2

 Progressive neuromuscular/neurodegenerative disease

 Curvature of the spine (spinal fusion at 9 years old)

 Long-term Progressive muscle weakness

 Everyday effects:

o Muscle and joint pain

o Muscle fatigue

o Rely on physical assistance for transferring, bathing, dressing, eating, and 

transportation

Defining the Barriers

There are 2 main barriers that I encounter during doctors visits and medical procedures:

1. Accessibility

2. Attitudinal

Accessibility Barriers

1. Check-in at reception area

2. Scale

3. Exam room table

4. Procedures

 Mammography and X-ray machine

5. Check out

[Photo: on the left Liz is in a power wheelchair in front of a check in counter at her doctor’s 

office. She is the same height as the counter and unable to reach the sign in sheet.]

[Photo of exam room table that is not accessible. On the right is the counter with drawers and 

medical supplies.]

Accessibility Barriers

 Transferring in and out of wheelchair

 Cannot be transferred without transfer lift – too painful and dangerous

 Bring my own transfer sheet whenever I go to doctor’s visits, ER visits or to medical 

procedures.

[Photo: Power wheelchair with transfer sheet. This is an all-black power wheelchair with a 

joystick. There is a light gray thick material that is spread half way up the back of the wheelchair 

down over the cushion and hanging off of the front about 5 inches. This sheet is used to 

transfer or someone in and out of a wheelchair.]
Attitudinal Barriers

 Equal treatment

 Strong focus on my “Life Expectancy”

 Often denied tests in a casual manner 

Attitudes are the Real Disability.

I do not think about my Disability until I encounter somewhere I can not access or someone who 

focuses on my weaknesses.

Recommendations

 Check-in/check-out counters should be crenulated to accommodate wheelchair height 

and various other needs

 More space in exam room (not enough room for power wheelchair, attendant, doctor, 

nurse, exam table, chairs, etc.)

 Accessible exam table and diagnostic machines (easily accessed with a transfer lift and 

be used while lying down)

 Disability Awareness training

Suggested Next Steps

Accessible Workout Equipment!

 If workout equipment was accessible and easy to access by individuals with various 

abilities (from a wheelchair) more people with disabilities would be inclined to exercise.

 Assisting in preventative measures could decrease the amount of doctors visits and 

medical procedures.

Thank You for Listening!
#### GONZALEZ v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4802.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Feb. 26, 1954.

*826Claudio Gonzalez Rodriguez, pro se, on brief for appellant.

Ruben Rodriguez Antongiorgi, U. S. Atty., San Juan, P. R., on brief for ap-pellee.

Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and MARIS and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.

MAGRUDER, Chief Judge.

Though the notice of appeal in this case is inartistically drawn and perhaps technically defective, we read it indulgently in the light of the record, and take it to be, what it no doubt was intended to be, an appeal from an order of the district court denying a motion by appellant under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a judgment of conviction in which a sentence of five years’ imprisonment was imposed for a narcotics offense under 26 U.S.C. § 2553. It is conceded by the government that the appeal is timely. Mercado v. United States, 1 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 486.

We disregard allegations in appellant’s brief and appendix thereto having no support in the record. The record before us is brief and presents a simple situation. Upon arraignment in the district court, Claudio Gonzalez Rodriguez, being advised by counsel, signed a waiver of indictment, and pleaded guilty to an information filed by the United States Attorney. After a short statement by the prosecutor as to the defendant’s prior criminal record, the court forthwith imposed the sentence of imprisonment, in a judgment entered October 26, 1951.

On September 15, 1953, appellant filed in the district court his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the aforesaid judgment of conviction. The sole ground stated in the motion for attacking the validity of the judgment is the allegation that “the evidence on which the conviction rests was illicit”, in that it was procured in the course of an unconstitutional search and *seizure. It is*not even claimed in the motion that appellant was innocent of the offense charged.

But the judgment of conviction does not rest on evidence turned up in an unlawful search and seizure but, rather, upon the plea of guilty. The judgment of conviction upon the plea of guilty cannot be held to be void, and thus open to attack on *habeas corpus*or on a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a substituted remedy provided by Congress for correcting erroneous sentences without resort to *habeas corpus.*If one is guilty, there is nothing wrong in pleading guilty — nor is there error by the court in accepting such a plea and sentencing the accused thereon- — even though it might be true that the government would have been unable to establish the accused’s guilt had he pleaded not guilty.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.