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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 99-4908

HAROLD EDWARD KELLY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.

(CR-99-99)

Submitted: November 9, 2000

Decided: June 29, 2001

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Mary Lou Newberger, Acting Federal Public Defender, George H.

Lancaster, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney,

John H. Tinney, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,

West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Harold Edward Kelly appeals from his sentence imposed pursuant

to his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.

Kelly contends that his supervised release term of five years exceeded

the maximum statutory term for his offense. We affirm. 

Kelly bases his argument on the Supreme Court’s recent decision

in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). In Apprendi, the

Supreme Court held that, other than a prior conviction, any fact that

increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable

doubt. Kelly argues that, under Apprendi, because the drug amount

was not charged in the indictment, he could only be sentenced under

the penalties described in 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West Supp.

2000) (providing penalties for offenses involving less than five grams

of crack cocaine: twenty-year maximum imprisonment term and a

minimum of three years supervised release). Kelly’s imprisonment

term was under the maximum prescribed by § 841(b)(1)(C). However, Kelly contends that his supervised release term of five years

exceeded the statutory maximum supervised release term of three

years. 

Kelly has misread § 841(b)(1)(C), which clearly provides for a

minimum supervised release term of three years, not a maximum.

Since Kelly’s five-year supervised release term does not exceed the

statutory range allowable regardless of drug quantity, Apprendi is

inapplicable. The identical claims were raised and rejected by United

States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 648 (4th Cir. 2001), the holding of

which requires affirmance in this case. 

Accordingly, we affirm Kelly’s sentence. We dispense with oral

argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre2 UNITED STATES v. KELLY
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. KELLY 3
§ 1.614 What quality assurance procedures must an accreditation body have to qualify for recognition? An accreditation body seeking recognition must demonstrate that it has: ( a ) Implemented a written program for monitoring and evaluating the performance of its officers, employees, and other agents and its accreditation program, including procedures to: ( 1 ) Identify areas in its accreditation program or performance where deficiencies exist; and
( 2 ) Quickly execute corrective actions that effectively address deficiencies when identified; and
( b ) The capability to meet the applicable quality assurance requirements of this subpart, if recognized.
N OTE : This o rder is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

RAKHMATULLA ASATOV,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AR MY,

Respondent.

______________________

2014

- 3021

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in No. DC3330130179 -I- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Rakhmatulla Asatov moves for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The motion is granted. Case: 14-3021 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 11/25/2013ASATOV v. ARMY 2

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk of Court

s 24 Case: 14-3021 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 11/25/2013
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 15
, 201 8 *

Decided August 16 , 201 8

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE

, Circuit Judge

AMY C. BARRETT

, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN

, Circuit Judge

No. 1 8

- 1590

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v

.

RODERICK V. BURTON

, Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

, Eastern Division.

No. 15 CR 312

- 1

Sharon Johnson Coleman

, J udge

.

O R D E R

In a three

- month spree in 2014, Roderick Burton robbed five banks in Cook County, Illinois. He eventually was arrested and charged by a grand jury with five counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Before trial

, Burton filed a pro se motion contesting the district court’s subject

- matt er jurisdiction on grounds that his criminal prosecution did not arise under “the Laws of the United States.” U.S. C ONST

.

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief s and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 1 8

- 1590 Page 2

art. III, § 2. The district court denied the motion, explaining that its “subject matter jurisdiction is derived from 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which confers this C ourt with original jurisdiction over ‘ all offenses against the laws of the United States. ’ ” The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found Burton guilty on all five counts

. He then mo ved for judgment of acquittal, renewing his challenge to the court’s subject

- matter jurisdiction over this case. The court denied this motion and reiterated that § 3231 confers subject

- matter jurisdiction in all federal criminal prosecution s . The court lat er sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment

.
On appeal

, Burton continues to press his argument that the district court lacked subject

- matter jurisdiction over his prosecution for the bank robberies. But “[s] ubject

matter jurisdiction in every federal cri minal prosecution comes from 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and there can be no doubt that Article III permits Congress to assign federal criminal prosecutions to federal courts. ” Hugi v. United States , 164 F.3d 378, 380 (7th Cir. 1999) ; see also United States v. Marks , 530 F.3d 799, 810

– 11 (9th Cir. 2008)

.
We have considered Burton’s other arguments, and none has merit.

AFFIRMED
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-22-00028-CR

IN RE WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-678-C2

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus filed on February 1, 2022, is denied.1

STEVE SMITH

Justice

1 Webb has already been appointed counsel to pursue a Chapter 64 motion for DNA testing and, 

therefore, is not entitled to a ruling on his pro se Chapter 64 motion. To compel such a ruling would be in 

derogation of the prohibition on hybrid representation.
In re Webb Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Smith,

and Justice Wright2

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed February 23, 2022

Do not publish

[OT06]

2 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, 

sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 

75.002, 75.003.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135330 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, MARGARET MANETTA, as Personal Justices 

Representative of the Estate of ROBERT

MANETTA, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135330 

 COA: 265988 

Macomb CC: 2001-001272-NH 

JAMES E. JOHNSON, D.O., and MACOMB

SURGICAL ASSOCIATES,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

MT. CLEMENS GENERAL HOSPITAL 

INCORPORATED,

Defendant.
 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2007 

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. 

d0211 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk
To: "Pettis, Mike" < mike.pettis@owenscorning.com >

From: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 01/20/2012 08:16AM

Subject: Re: OC 114 response error.

Thanks for catching this error and notifying me as soon as you found it. Please just send a

letter to the CBI office that corrects the error

- there is no need to resend the entire

response.

In that letter, please indicate what the errors in your response s were and what the correct

data are.

Thanks,

Susan Fairchild

Environmental Scientist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

direct line: 919.541.5167

fax: 919.541

- 3207

email: fairchild.susan@epa.gov

Overnigh t mail address:

US EPA

Mail Code D243

- 04

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC 27709

----- "Pettis, Mike" < mike.pettis@owenscorning.com > wrote:

-----

To: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Pettis, Mike" < mike.pettis@owenscorning.com >

Date: 01/19/2012 01:26PM

Subject: OC 114 response error.

Susan, We have discovered a data input error on the confidential version of this last 114 request response “B”

form. Kansas City’s J5 furnace and K5 glass through put have been transposed.

How would you prefer we correct the error? 

# Michael Pettis

740

- 328

- 2468 740

- 877

- 7087 (cell)



## Make the World a Better Place
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,686,247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,345,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,679,149
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,711,066
<PP&E>                                         161,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,914,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,869,025
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       146,265
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,898,776
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,914,067
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               958,305
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,897,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                51,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (991,252)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (991,252)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
|     1.       | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|     2.       | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May 14, 2010 |   | /s/ Evan Myrianthopoulos            |   |
|--------------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|         |   | Evan Myrianthopoulos                |   |
|         |   | Chief Financial Officer             |   |
|         |   | (Principal Financial Officer)  |   |
#### § 170.315 Executive.

*Executive* means officers, managing partners, or any other employees in management positions.
H. Res. 759 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 1, 2018. 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives offers its 

deep sympathies to the members of the family of the late 

Reverend Billy Graham. 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 

legacy of Reverend Billy Graham for his life-long commitment 

to preaching the Gospels, his fight for civil rights, his opposition to communism, and the spiritual guidance that he provided to millions of people in the United States and around 

the world. 

Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it do so 

as a mark of respect to the memory of the late Billy Graham. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### § 782.505 Who in USAID determines that a recipient who is an individual violated the requirements of this part?

The Director of the Office of Acquisition and Assistance is the official authorized to make the determination under 2 CFR 182.505.
#### § 1.922 Who will respond to a petition requesting a waiver?

The Director or Deputy Directors of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) or the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), or the Director, Office of Compliance, CFSAN, or the Director, Office of Surveillance and Compliance, CVM, will respond to a petition requesting a waiver.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,195
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,312
<INVENTORY>                                      1,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,223
<PP&E>                                           3,571
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,705
<BONDS>                                          5,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                         493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,894
<SALES>                                          1,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,762
<CGS>                                              880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,212)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,212)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,212)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
## Ames Test

Sanitized
* 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 September 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60968 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DON EUGENE GIBSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:03-CR-93-BS-ALL

-------------------- Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Don Eugene Gibson appeals his conviction and sentence for sexual abuse of a minor on the basis that his confession should have been suppressed. He argues that his confession was involuntary because (1) it was elicited after he invoked his right to counsel and (2) it was the result of coercion. Gibson contends that he was not provided with an attorney despite three requests during an interrogation conducted after a polygraph examination. The district court found that Gibson’sNo. 03-60968 -2-

** Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). statements, “Do I need an attorney?” and “Well, this sounds serious. Maybe I need to talk to an attorney” did not constitute unequivocal requests for counsel, thus the agent was not required to cease his interrogation. This finding was not error. Davis v. United States , 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994); Soffar v. Cockrell , 300 F.3d 588, 591-95 (5th Cir. 2002)(en banc); United States v. Posada-Rios , 158 F.3d 832, 867 (5th Cir. 1998). Gibson concedes that he was informed of his Miranda ** rights prior to taking the polygraph examination as well as his rights not to take the polygraph examination, not to answer any questions, not to answer specific questions, to have a lawyer present during the examination, and to stop the examination at any time. He complains that Agent Spiers did not again inform him of his rights before beginning the post-test interrogation. This argument is without merit. Agent Spiers was not required to again warn Gibson of his rights after having done so that same day only an hour or so earlier. See Wyrick v. Fields , 459 U.S. 42, 47-48, 49 (1982); see also , Soffar , 300 F.3d at 593. Gibson complains that his confession was coerced due to the use of a small room; the length of time he was in the room; Agent Spiers’ failure to inform him that he could leave the room to take a break, use the bathroom, or eat lunch; Agent Spiers’ informing him that he had failed the test; and Agent Spiers’ promise to make a favorable recommendation if he resolved theNo. 03-60968 -3- matter that day. The tactics used by Agent Spiers were similar to those used in United States v. Bell , 367 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2004). Under the reasoning of that case, such tactics, standing alone, do not amount to coercion sufficient to render Gibson’s confession involuntary. See Bell , 367 F.3d 461-62. The district court did not err in denying Gibson’s motion to suppress his confession.
AFFIRMED.
#### STATE OF MINNESOTA et al., Appellees, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Robert W. Fri, Appellants.

No. 73-1446.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 1974.

Decided March 5, 1975.

*914Edmund W. Kitch, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Jonathan H. Morgan, Sol. Gen., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees.

Jon Mills, Center for Governmental Responsibility, Gainesville, Fla., amici curiae.

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, MEHAFFY, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY, HEANEY, BRIGHT, ROSS, STEPHENSON, and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency brought this action against the United States Environmental Protection Agency and its Acting Administrator seeking to compel the defendants to allot to Minnesota the full sums “authorized to be appropriated” for the construction of sewage treatment plants under sections 205(a) and 207 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1285(a) and 1287. The full sums under the statutory scheme would have provided Minnesota with allotments of approximately $100.6 million for fiscal year 1973 and $121 million for fiscal year 1974. However, the Administrator, acting pursuant to the order of President Nixon that he allot among all the states only $5 billion of the $11 billion authorized by Congress for the two years, allotted to Minnesota only $40.6 million for fiscal year 1973 and $60 million for fiscal year 1974.

In an unpublished memorandum and order the district judge determined that the Administrator had acted outside the scope of his authority under the Act in refusing to allot all of the funds authorized by Congress to be appropriated. He, therefore, ordered the defendants to allot to Minnesota the full sums authorized by the Act. This appeal followed.

After hearing oral argument en banc this Court delayed rendering a decision until the Supreme Court decided two cases which involved the identical issue of whether the Administrator had exceeded the scope of his authority under sections 205(a) and 207 of the Act when he allotted to the states less than the full amount authorized by Congress.

The Supreme Court announced its decisions in these cases on February 18, 1975, holding that the Act does not permit the Administrator to allot to the states under section 205 less than the entire amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 207. Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 839, 43 L.Ed.2d 1 (1975). *See also*Train v. Campaign Clean Water, Inc., 420 U.S. 136, 95 S.Ct. 847, 43 L.Ed.2d 82 (1975).

In accordance with this holding of the Supreme Court the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Mandate shall issue forthwith.
#### § 111.530 When must an investigation be conducted of your manufacturing processes and other batches?

If the reason for a dietary supplement being returned implicates other batches, you must conduct an investigation of your manufacturing processes and each of those other batches to determine compliance with specifications.
#### § 2200.332 What methods must I use to pass requirements down to participants at lower tiers with whom I intend to do business?

You as a participant must include a term or condition in lower-tier transactions requiring lower-tier participants to comply with Subpart C of the OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 180.
#### § 903.11 Advance announcement of rate adjustment.

The Administrator may announce that the development of rates for a new service or revised rates for an existing service is under consideration. The announcement shall contain pertinent information relevant to the rate adjustment. The announcement may be through direct contact with customers, at public meetings, by press release, by newspaper advertisement, and/or by Federal Register publication. Written comments relevant to rate policy and design and to the rate adjustment process may be submitted by interested parties in response to the announcement. Any comments received shall be considered in the development of Proposed Rates.