alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NICOLE ESTELLA JONES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00141-FL-1; 5:16-cv-00297-FL)

Submitted: October 1, 2021 Decided: October 20, 2021

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Paul Vitrano, VITRANO LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Wake Forest, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicole Estella Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the 

Government’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and denying relief on Jones’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 26 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 26

Congratulating the Downers Grove North High School Trojan football team 
 and the students and fans of Downers Grove North High School on their 
  outstanding sportsmanship and on winning the 2004 Illinois Class 8A 
                      Football State Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

 Mr. McDermott (for himself and Mrs. Biggert) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Congratulating the Downers Grove North High School Trojan football team 
 and the students and fans of Downers Grove North High School on their 
  outstanding sportsmanship and on winning the 2004 Illinois Class 8A 
                      Football State Championship.

Whereas on November 27, 2004, in front of a crowd of more than 11,000 at the 
        University of Illinois' Memorial Stadium in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, 
        the Downers Grove North Trojans defeated the Maine South Hawks 33-13 to 
        win the 2004 Illinois Class 8A Football State Championship;
Whereas the State championship was the first for Downers Grove North's football 
        team, and was the first State championship for any male sports team in 
        the school's history; and
Whereas the Trojans used a good defense and a running-based, ball-control 
        offense to defeat their opponents throughout the playoffs, and held 
        Maine South 30 points below its season average in the championship game: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the 
Downers Grove North Trojan football team and the students and fans of 
Downers Grove North High School on their outstanding sportsmanship and 
on winning the 2004 Illinois Class 8A Football State Championship.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALONSO NEVAREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-72064

Agency No. A087-455-218

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 15, 2016** 

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Alonso Nevarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

FILED

MAR 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the agency’s factual determination regarding continuous physical presence, IbarraFlores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo

constitutional claims, Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Nevarez’s

voluntary return to Mexico disrupted continuous physical presence, rendering him

ineligible for cancellation of removal, where Nevarez signed a form indicating he

requested voluntary return and testified he was told of his options, and where an

immigration officer testified that he followed proper procedure in informing

Nevarez of his rights. See Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d at 619 (administrative

voluntary departure under threat of deportation constitutes a break in continuous

physical presence if the alien is informed of and accepts the terms of the

departure); Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (an

alien’s testimony that he was given a choice between removal proceedings and

administrative voluntary departure constitutes substantial evidence that the

departure was knowing and voluntary). 

Nevarez’s assertion that the BIA violated due process by failing to consider

his testimony and by making sua sponte factual findings is not supported by the

record. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 14-72064
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 1, 2017

Decided December 4, 2017

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

GARY FEINERMAN, District Judge*

No. 15-3625

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ANGLIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for 

the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin.

No. 14-cr-3

C.N. Clevert, Jr., Judge.

On Remand from the 

Supreme Court of the 

United States.

Order

Our opinion in this appeal, 846 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2017), remanded for 

additional proceedings concerning the terms of supervised release but otherwise 

affirmed the convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court then instructed us to 

consider the effect of Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017), which held that 

 * Of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
No. 15-3625 Page 2

a district court need not disregard the punishment on counts with mandatoryminimum sentences when determining the punishment on other counts. Anglin 

v. United States, No. 16–9411 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017). The parties have filed position 

statements on remand.

After considering these statements, we remand to the district court with 

instructions to conduct a full resentencing in light of Dean and all other current 

law, including this circuit’s rulings (some of which post-date our original 

opinion) on the terms of supervised release. Because the district judge who 

sentenced Anglin has retired, it is not possible to ask him whether this circuit’s 

opinion in United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2007), which Dean

disapproved, affected Anglin’s sentence. And because at least some terms of 

Anglin’s sentence must be determined by a newly assigned judge, the most 

sensible approach is to allow that judge to craft a complete sentencing package.

Anglin’s convictions remain valid. The sentences are vacated, and the case is 

remanded for resentencing.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10462

Conference Calendar

 

TROY O’NEAL ROBINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS;

TAYLOR COUNTY TEXAS;

DAVID W. THEDFORD,

Attorney at Law,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:99-CV-282-C

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

October 17, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Troy O’Neal Robinson, Texas prisoner # 547327, appeals the

dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP), civil rights

complaint. The district court dismissed Robinson’s civil rights

claims with prejudice as time-barred and, to the extent the

claims were more properly raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition,

the court dismissed the claims without prejudice to raise them in

such a petition.
No. 00-10462

-2-

In his pro se brief, Robinson argues the merits of his 

claims. Although he recites boilerplate regarding the applicable

limitations period and the accrual of federal causes of action,

Robinson does not argue that the district court erred in

determining when his causes of action accrued or in dismissing

his complaint as time-barred.

Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction,

see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), even pro se

litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). When an appellant

fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it

is as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment. Brinkmann

v. Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). General arguments

giving only broad standards of review and not citing to specific

errors are insufficient to preserve issues for appeal. Id.

Robinson has failed to brief any argument regarding the

reasons given for the district court’s dismissal of his claims. 

Accordingly, he has abandoned the only appealable issue and has

failed to raise any meritorious argument on appeal. Because his

appeal is wholly without merit, it is DISMISSED as FRIVOLOUS. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 21, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R.

42.2. Robinson’s motion for discovery is DENIED as MOOT.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a

“strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Robinson is

warned that if he accumulates three “strikes” pursuant to

§ 1915(g), he may not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action
No. 00-10462

-3-

or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any

facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; STRIKE WARNING ISSUED; MOTION

FOR DISCOVERY DENIED AS MOOT.
§ 20.1904 Labeling containers. ( a ) The licensee shall ensure that each container of licensed material bears a durable, clearly visible label bearing the radiation symbol and the words “CAUTION, RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL” or “DANGER, RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL.” The label must also provide sufficient information (such as the radionuclide(s) present, an estimate of the quantity of radioactivity, the date for which the activity is estimated, radiation levels, kinds of materials, and mass enrichment) to permit individuals handling or using the containers, or working in the vicinity of the containers, to take precautions to avoid or minimize exposures.
( b ) Each licensee shall, prior to removal or disposal of empty uncontaminated containers to unrestricted areas, remove or deface the radioactive material label or otherwise clearly indicate that the container no longer contains radioactive materials.
#### In the Matter of Ulysses A. Bullock et al., Respondents, v. William J. Van Wart et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Westchester County, Respondents, and Jack A. Bornstein, Appellant.

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating appellant as a candidate in the Democratic Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for nomination for the public office of Alderman of the City of Mount Vernon, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 2, *7941969, which granted the relief sought and enjoined the respondent Board of Elections accordingly. Order affirmed, without costs, on the authority of *Matter of King*v. *McNab*(14 A D 2d 808, affd. 10 N Y 2d 887). Appellant is granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Questions of law have arisen which ought to be reviewed. Beldock, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 18, 2019

a1015 

# Order

Clerk October 18, 2019

159323

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159323

COA: 339953

FUAD FAROUK SHEENA, Oakland CC: 2011

- 237051

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Ja nuary 24, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

B ERNSTEIN , J. ( dissenting ).

I respectfully dissent. I would have granted defendant’s application for leave to

appeal to determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an insanity

defense. Two doctors performed psychological evaluations of defendant and conclu ded

that defendant was not legally insane. But the doctors disagreed about whether the

defendant had a “mental illness,” and even the doctor who concluded defendant did not

was equivocal. Further, both the doctors recognized that defendant had significan t

mental health issues and sometimes could not understand the consequences of his actions.

Under Michigan’s statute governing the insanity defense, a defendant is

considered legally insane if, “as a result of mental illness,” he “lacks substantial capa city

either to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his . . . conduct or to

conform his . . . conduct to the requirements of the law.” MCL 768.21a(1). In my view,

the doctors’ conclusions regarding legal insanity were contrary to the plain language of

MCL 768.21a(1), and defendant presents a reasonable argument that despite these

conclusions, trial counsel should have further investigated whether an insanity defense

should have been presented.

M C C ORMACK , C.J. and C AVANAGH , J., join t he statement of B ERNSTEIN , J.
§ 15.67 Referral to the Department of Justice. ( a ) Unless excepted by DOJ, the NRC shall complete the CCLR accompanied by a Certificate of Indebtedness, to refer all administratively uncollectible claims to the DOJ for litigation.
( b ) The NRC shall indicate the actions it wishes DOJ to take regarding the referred claim on the CCLR.
( c ) Before referring a debt to DOJ for litigation, the NRC shall notify each person determined to be liable for the debt that, unless the debt can be collected administratively, litigation may be initiated. This notification must comply with Executive Order 12988 (3 CFR, 1996 Comp., pp 157-163) and may be given as part of a demand letter or as a separate document.
( d ) The NRC shall preserve all files and records that DOJ may need to prove the claim in court.
( e ) The NRC may ordinarily not refer for litigation claims of less than $2,500, exclusive of interest, penalties, and administrative charges, or such other amount as the Attorney General shall from time to time prescribe.
( f ) The NRC may not refer claims of less than the minimum amount unless: ( 1 ) Litigation to collect a smaller claim is important to ensure compliance with NRC's policies and programs;
( 2 ) The claim is being referred solely to secure a judgment against the debtor, which will be filed as a lien against the debtor's property under 28 U.S.C. 3201 and returned to the NRC for enforcement, or
( 3 ) The debtor has the clear ability to pay the claim, and the Government effectively can enforce payment, with due regard for the exemptions available to the debtor under state and Federal law and the judicial remedies available to the Government.
[67 FR 30324, May 6, 2002]
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 242 ) ll-K - (I ) -5 5 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:56

AM Sheet 242 of 325P. 2 

# 'A \ Pl L7\ CD (ry II-K-(I)-5 5
BACKGROUN D PAPER S FO

R DISCUSSIO N

O F REMAININGCOS T ALGORITHMS , INDUSTRIA L BOILE RNSPS . EEA , Inc . Februar y 8 , 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-5 5
#### NACHOD et al., Respondents, v. PERRY KNITTING CO., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 10, 1906.)

Action by Friederich Nachod and others against the Perry Knitting Company.

PER CURIAM.

Order modified, so as to limit the examination of the witnesses named in said order solely to the delivery *to*the defendant and receipt by it from the James Freeman Brown Company of the goods and merchandise mentioned in the complaint in this action, and to require the production on said examination of only such books and paners as bear unon the question as to which such examination is hereby *1132limited; and, as thus modified, said order is affirmed, without costs.

KRUSE, J., not voting.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of Closed Meeting of Art Advisory Panel.

# SUMMARY:

Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in Washington, DC.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held February 10, 2010.

# ADDRESSES:

The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on February 10, 2010, in Room 4112 beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph E. Bothwell, C:AP:P&V:ART, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Telephone (202) 435-5611 (not a toll free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on February 10, 2010, in Room 4112 beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.

The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.

A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), and that the meeting will not be open to the public.

Diane S. Ryan,

Chief, Appeals.

[FR Doc. 2010-317 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

TOMMY LEE WILSON, )

AIS #225500, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-CV-751-WKW

)

RALPH HOOKS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

ORDER

On August 17, 2009 the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation

(“Recommendation”) in this case. (Doc. # 34.) Petitioner Tommy Lee Wilson filed an

Objection to the Recommendation on September 3, 2009. (Doc. # 35.) The court has

conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to

which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Mr. Wilson’s Objection fails to identify specific points of disagreement with the

Recommendation. Mr. Wilson does not explain how he can overcome the

Recommendation’s finding that all but one of his grounds for habeas relief are procedurally

barred by his failure to exhaust them in state court. (Doc. # 34, at 12-13, 22-26.) The only

surviving ground for relief is Mr. Wilson’s claim that the evidence at his trial was

constitutionally insufficient to support the verdict against him, in contravention of Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). As the Recommendation states, Mr. Wilson has

made no showing that the state court’s resolution of this issue fell below the highly

Case 3:06-cv-00751-WKW-TFM Document 36 Filed 09/15/09 Page 1 of 2
deferentialstandard of review to be applied in federal habeas corpus proceedings. (Doc. #34,

at 17-19.)

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Mr. Wilson’s Objection (Doc. # 35) is OVERRULED;

(2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 34) is ADOPTED;

(3) Mr. Wilson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is

DENIED, and;

(4) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE this 15th day of September, 2009.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 3:06-cv-00751-WKW-TFM Document 36 Filed 09/15/09 Page 2 of 2