alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 12595 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:11

- cr - 00008

- WKW

- WC

- 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ANTHONY DARELL TALLIE, a.k.a. Pokie,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________ ( March 2, 2021 )
Before WILSON , NEWSOM, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 20-12595 Date Filed: 03/02/2021 Page: 1 of 22 J .D. Lloyd, appointed counsel for Anthony Tallie in this appeal from the denial of Tallie’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to An ders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals that we lack jurisdiction, as the appeal is moot, counsel’s
motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Tallie’s appeal is DISMISSED

.

USCA11 Case: 20-12595 Date Filed: 03/02/2021 Page: 2 of 2
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

.



# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

DAVID KENT THACKER, JR.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 2333

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. 1:23

- cv

- 01092

- EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the court’s October 26, 2023, and

December 6, 2023, orders, and David Kent Thacker, Jr.’s

failure to submit the court’s filing fee,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 23-2333 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 01/22/2024THACKER v. US 2

The appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

January 22

, 202 4

Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 23-2333 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 01/22/2024
§ 336.7 Employee responsibility, counseling and distribution of regulation. ( a ) Each employee is responsible for being familiar with and complying with the provisions of this part.
( b ) The Ethics Counselor shall provide a copy of this part to each new employee within 30 days of initial appointment.
( c ) An employee who believes that he or she may not be in compliance with the minimum standards provided under § 336.5(a)(1) through (4), or who receives a demand letter from the FDIC for any reason, shall make a written report of all relevant facts to the Ethics Counselor within ten (10) business days after the employee discovers the possible noncompliance, or after the receipt of a demand letter from the FDIC.
( d ) The Ethics Counselor shall provide guidance to employees regarding the appropriate statutes, regulations and corporate policies affecting employee's ethical responsibilities and conduct under this part.
( e ) The Ethics Counselor shall provide the Personnel Services Branch with notice of an employee's noncompliance.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.7
                             SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT

         WHEREAS, WEDGE Energy Services, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company ("WEDGE") intends to lend South Texas Drilling & Exploration, Inc.
("SOTX") the sum of $9,000,000.00 evidenced by a Subordinated Note of even date
herewith (the "Subordinated Note"); and

         WHEREAS, the American Bank, N.A. has entered into a Loan Agreement,
(the "Loan Agreement"), with SOTX under which SOTX borrowed $3,000,000.00,
evidenced by one or more notes issued under the Loan Agreement (the "Notes")
which Notes are to be secured by certain real estate and assets of Pioneer
Drilling Co., Ltd. ("Pioneer", which is a partnership comprised of entities
which are wholly owned by SOTX) pursuant to a Deed of Trust and Security
Agreement (the "Security Agreement"). The Loan Agreement, Notes and Security
Agreement and any renewals and extensions thereof, are collectively referred to
herein as the "Superior Indebtedness"); and

         WHEREAS, WEDGE has agreed to subordinate the Subordinated Note and any
renewals and extensions thereof (the "Inferior Indebtedness") to the Superior
Indebtedness:

         NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that WEDGE, in
consideration of the premises, and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100
DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, HAS COVENANTED AND
AGREED, and does hereby COVENANT AND AGREE, that the Inferior Indebtedness shall
be, and the same is hereby made subject and inferior to the Superior
Indebtedness.

         WEDGE further agrees that it will not receive, collect or seek to
collect any amount owing under the Inferior Indebtedness until all of the
Superior Indebtedness is paid in full.

         WEDGE further agrees to take all action necessary to convert the
Inferior Indebtedness into equity in SOTX as soon as shareholder approval has
been obtained.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed by WEDGE
effective the 30th day of March, 2001.

                                   WEDGE ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C.


                                   By:  /s/   James M. Tidwell
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                               James M. Tidwell, Vice President

                                      -1-
EXHIBIT F

(First June 2016 Executive Order)

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:240-6 Filed:05/31/17 Entered:05/31/17 17:37:19 Desc:

Exhibit F Page 1 of 6
MOVANTS EXHIBIT 9
 

 

MOVANTS EXHIBIT 9
 

 

 

MOVANTS EXHIBIT 9
MOVANTS EXHIBIT 9
MOVANTS EXHIBIT 9
## ,. 0 7



# ------ Mv na e is James



## Cari~-o~ represent the Alabama DepartmentofEnvironmental



### . ' Manageme ··. appreciates the opportunityto comment at today'sproceedings. The Department has three broad comments on EPA·s proposal: 1. EPA'sproposed rules to regulate greenhouse emissions are tantamount to setting energy policy for the United States. 2. EPA is seeking to decide upon an energy policy for the nation that will have limited direct environmental impactbut dramatic national economic impact. Such apolicy decision is appropriatelyreserved for the Legislative branch ofgovernment. 3. EPA is reaching far beyond its historical practice and very likely beyond its statutory authority in using measures "outside the plant boundary"to calculate the emission reductions States and affected sources must meet. In spite ofrepresentations to the contrary, the greenhouse gas emission standards proposed by EPA for the existing fleet ofElectric Generating Units in Alabama, as well as in many other states, are achievable only by decommissioning coal-firedEGUs, and by dispatching generation to natural gas-fired capacityregardless ofthe cost ofgeneration. The types and sources offuels to generate electric energy, the cost ofenergy, the export and import ofenergy, the reliability of the electric grid and thus energypolicy throughout the nation would be determined by EPA ifthe proposed greenhouse gas emission standards are implemented. Regarding whether Congress or EPA should set energypolicy, the AlabamaDepartment of Environmental Managementconcurs withthe statement in the June 23, 2014 United States Supreme Court greenhouse gas ruling opinion that the Justices"
....expect Congress to speak clearly ifit wishes to assign to an agency decisions ofvast "economic and political significance."" EPA has stated that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States will be negligible compared to worldwide emissions and that the effort is essentially symbolic. lfthe United States is to offer a low-impact, symbolic greenhouse gas reduction program. hoping to spark similar actions world-wide, while incurring vast economic consequences, ADEM believes Congress is the appropriate institution to do so. ln past 11 l(d) actions, and in similarrulemakings in such areas as New Source Performance Standards and Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, EPA has never ventured beyond

**tip-of~stack** control or workpracticesto require reductions. ADEM concludesthat EPA's only legal options for requiring reductions from existing fossil-fuel fired powerplants lie in these two areas. Since EPA has rejected

**tip-of~stack** controls (carbon capture and sequestration) torthese sources, EPA's only legal option lies in a workpractice requirement (efficiency improvements). ADEM will submit more detailed comments to the docket before the deadline. This concludes our comments.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3728 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3728

  To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow additional transit 
 systems greater flexibility with certain mass transportation projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2004

  Mr. Pitts (for himself, Mr. Burgess, and Mr. Taylor of Mississippi) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow additional transit 
 systems greater flexibility with certain mass transportation projects.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Transit System Flexibility 
Protection Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

    Section 5307(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary may make grants under 
this section to a transit system to finance the operating cost of 
equipment and facilities for use in mass transportation in an urbanized 
area with a population of more than 200,000 if such transit system 
operates less than 100 buses on fixed route service during peak service 
hours.''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 747
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 747.7 Good faith certification. ( a ) *General requirement.* Every filing or submission of record following the issuance of a notice must be signed by at least one counsel of record in the counsel's individual name and must state that counsel's mailing address, electronic mail address, and telephone number. A party who acts as the party's own counsel must sign that person's individual name and state that person's mailing address, electronic mail address, and telephone number on every filing or submission of record. Electronic signatures may be used to satisfy the signature requirements of this section.
( b ) *Effect of signature.* ( 1 ) The signature of counsel or a party will constitute a certification: the counsel or party has read the filing or submission of record; to the best of the counsel's or party's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the filing or submission of record is well-grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and the filing or submission of record is not made for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
( 2 ) If a filing or submission of record is not signed, the ALJ will strike the filing or submission of record, unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant.
( c ) *Effect of making oral motion or argument.* The act of making any oral motion or oral argument by any counsel or party constitutes a certification that to the best of the counsel's or party's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the counsel's or party's statements are well-grounded in fact and are warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and are not made for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY T

. FULLER,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 10352

D.C. No. 1:10

- cr
- 00023

- SOM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Anthony T. Fuller appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 26

- month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction u nder 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we af firm.

Fuller first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

* Th is disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FIL ED

JUL 11 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 10352

explain the sentence adequately . We review for plain error, see United States v.
Miqbel , 444 F. 3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and conclude that there is none. The

court thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence on two occasions. Contrary
to Fuller’s suggestion, the court was not required to mention each of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) factors to show that it had considered them. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Fuller next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

. He
argues that the 26

- month sentence is longer than necessary and that the district
court imposed the sentence solely to promote respect for the law, an impermissible
sentencing factor in a supervised release proceeding. The district court did not

abuse its discretion

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record
shows that the court did not base the sentence on improper considerations, but

rather properly considered Fuller’s poor attitude on supervision, as well as the
frequency of hi s supervised release revocations and the length of his prior

sentences. See United States v. Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1062

- 63 (9th Cir. 2007)
(the violator’s history and the extent of his breach of the court’s trust are
appropriate considerations at a revoc ation sentencing). The above

- Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances . Fuller’s constitutional claims
concerning the length of his sentence also fail

. See United States v. Williams , 6363 17

- 10352

F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2011) (sentence is unconstitutional if it is “grossly
disproportionate” to the crime).

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7274

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND G. GERTH, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-28-3, CA-97-944-5-H) Submitted: December 30, 1998 Decided: March 9, 1999 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Raymond G. Gerth, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* In support of its motion for summary judgment, the Government included an affidavit by Gerth’s counsel, Jeffrey L. Starkweather, addressing Gerth’s ineffective assistance claims. (R. 51, Ex. B). The affidavit does not indicate that the attorney’s statement was made under the penalty of perjury. Further, the notary’s attestation clause recites that “William E. Scott,” not Starkweather, appeared before her. 2 PER CURIAM Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. While summary judgment on Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims should not have been based upon an improperly sworn affidavit, * summary judgment was nevertheless properly granted on all such claims. We dismiss the balance of Appellant’s claims on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Gerth , No. CR-93-28-3; CA-97-944-5-H (E.D.N.C.Aug. 6, 1998). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability. We also deny Appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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
#### RICHESON, ET AL. V. RUSSELLVILLE CANNING COMPANY.

(Decided February 5, 1914.)

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. C. P. Almon.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
§ 797.24 Certification where NCUA is the paying agency. ( a ) Upon issuance of a proper certification by NCUA or upon receipt of a proper certification from another creditor agency, NCUA shall send the employee a written notice of salary offset.
( b ) Such written notice of salary offset shall advise the employee of the: ( 1 ) Certification that has been issued by NCUA or received from another creditor agency;
( 2 ) Amount of the debt and of the deductions to be made; and
( 3 ) Date and pay period when the salary offset will begin.
( c ) If NCUA is not the creditor agency, NCUA shall provide a copy of the notice to the creditor agency and advise the creditor agency of the dollar amount to be offset and the pay period when the offset will begin.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 
**- 7604** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
EKERE INYANGETTE, a/k/a Michael Thomas, a/k/a Uduak Inyangette ,
Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr
- 00260

- LO

- 1 )

Submitted : December 18, 2012 Decided: December 28, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Ekere Inyangette, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lamont Creighton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexand ria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Ekere Inyangette seeks to appeal his conviction and

132

- month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of
possession with intent to distribut e five grams or more of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006)

. We
dismiss the appeal.
In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of
appeal within fourteen da ys after the entry of judgment. 1 Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Wi th or w ithout a motion, upon a
showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court
may grant an extension of up to thirty d ays to file a notice of
appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759

F. 2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).

The d istrict court entered the criminal judgment on
October 26, 2009

. Inyangette filed his notice of appeal on
September 1 3, 2012

. 2 Because Inyangette failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or obtain an ext ension of the appeal period, we

1 At the time judgment was entered, the appeal period was ten days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2008). On December 1, 2009, the period was extended to fourteen days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2009). Inyangette’s notice of appeal is untimely under either period.

2 For purpose s of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).3 d ismiss the appeal. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process

.
DISMISSED

3 We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a jurisdictional provision, but rather a claim

- processing rule. Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 209

- 14 (2007); United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). However, because Inyanget te’s appeal is inordinately late, and its consideration is not in the best interest of judicial economy, we exercise our inherent power to dismiss it. United States v. Mitchell , 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008).
20 21 22

Old Daves Creek

29 28 27

l Hil Road

na n C

Ti

32 33 34

Tin Can Hill

Travel Management Area

Alternative B

R15E

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Miles

Wyoming

T

2

N

Location Map

Montana

Billings 

Field 

Office

Map scale 1:24,000

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

Ü Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau

of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

90

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Map 132

Legend

Recommend Routes

Administrative Use Only: 1 Miles

Closed to All Vehicles: 2 Miles

Streams

Bureau of Land Management

Private 

Public Lands Survey System

Tin Can Hill Travel Management Area

Roads