alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-50339 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. IGNACIO RUELAS TORRES, also known as Nacho, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-289-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pursuant to a written plea agree m e nt, Ignacio Ruelas Torres (Torres), federal prisoner # 97142-180, pleaded guilty to accepting bribes and conspiring to defraud the United States and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 60 and 84 months. Torres did not appeal, but he filed a n u n successful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Unite d S t a t e s v. Torres , No. 09-50762 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 2010) (unpublished order denying a certificate of appealability). U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary20 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50339 Document: 00511732225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2012No. 11-50339

Torres now appeals the denial of two motions he filed in the district court in 2011. The first was a “Motion under F E D
. R. C IV
. P. 60(b)(4),” and the second was a similar “Motion Pursuant to 18 USC 3742(a) & (c).” In both motions, he ignored his conc u rr ent sentences and argued that the total sentence imposed

was 144 months r ather than 84. He also contends that he did not agree to the concurrent 60-month sentence or to any term of supervised release. The district court denied the motions and alternatively di smissed them after finding that neither could be construed in any manner as a suitable vehicle for seeking relief. Torres also mo v es for appointment of counsel and for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). The motion to proceed IFP is construed as a challenge to the di s t ri ct court’s certif

i cation that an appeal would be frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We ask only whether the appeal presents any issue that is not frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 2 1 5 , 2 2 0 ( 5th Cir. 1983). We may dismiss a frivolous appeal. Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 T H C I R . R. 42.2. Torres’s motions attacking his conviction and sentence were unauthorized and without any jurisdictional basis under § 37 4 2 , 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, o r a n y o t h e r federal rule or statute. See United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Ci r . 1 9 9 4). Consequently, Torres cannot identify any nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard , 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, the mo t i o n t o appeal IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. The motion to appoint counsel is also DENIED.

2 Case: 11-50339 Document: 00511732225 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2012
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Franklin Credit Management Corporation
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul D.
      Colasono, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul
              D.
              ColasonoPaul
                D. Colasono
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              March
                30, 2007
## D’AVION LLC

. 200 Jet Port Road Brandon, MS 39047
601

- 936

- 0777
davionllc.com info@davionllc.com

21 June 2016

This Petition for Amendment letter is in reference to: Exemption No. 14071 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 3755

John S

. Dungan Director, Flight Standards Service Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations
West Build ing Ground Floor, Room W 12

- 140 1200 New Jersey A venue, SE Washington, DC 20590

This is	a petition request to amend Condition	No.	1	with	regard	to Regulatory Docket	No.	FAA

- 2015

- 3755	and	exemption	numbered	14071	(hereinafter referred	to	as the	Exemption) and	is	for	the
purpose	of	requesting	additional	aircraft	for	the	previous	approved	request. It	is	requested	that

Condition	No.	1 in Exemption	be	amended	to add	the	FAA	Approved	Unmanned	Aerial	Systems	(UAS )
Make/Model	under	Section	333	that was	updated	by	the	FAA	on	June	7,	2016 as	approved	by	the
Secretary	of	Transportation	under	Section	333	of	the	2012	FAA	Modernization	and	Reform	Act ,	and
that	any	future updates	to the list also be accepted	as	an	official	update	to	our	333	Exemption

.
Please	feel	free	to	contact	the	undersigned or	Joseph	Davis	( jo.davis@davionllc.com ) should you	have any	question	or	concern s	concerning	this	request	for	the amendment	to	the	Exemption.

Best r egards,

Carl R. Davis
M ember, D’Avion LLC
# e i

U.S . Departmen t o f 1200Ne wJerse yAvenue , S.E . Transportatio n Washington , D C 2059 0 Offic e o f th e Secretary o f Transportatio n NOTIC E O FAPPROVA LO FlAT A AGREEMENT(S ) Thi s serve s a s official notic e o f th e Department' s approva l an dgran t o f antitrus t immunity t o th e dockete dlAT A agreement(s ) liste dbelow ^ durin g th e weekl y perio dendin g Januar y 28 , 2011 . Approva l o f

an y individua l lAT A agreemen t i s subject , wher e applicable , t o an y condition s previousl y impose db y th e Department . DOCKE T NUMBE RDAT E FILE D DAT E APPROVE D OST-2011-0014 01/25/1 1 01/28/1 1

U.S . an dForeig n Agreemen t Actio n take n by : Pau l L . Gretc h Director , Offic e o f

Internationa l Aviatio n b y authority assigne dimde r 1 4 CF R38 5 A n electroni c versio n o f

this documen t

i s availabl e o n th e Worl dWid

e We b a t http://dms.dot.gOv//reports/reports_aviation.as p
From: kdixon3@woh.rr.com [mailto:kdixon3@woh.rr.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:25 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Kathleen Dixon 

1058 Melrose Street 

Bowling Green, OH 43402
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

The Court held a final pretrial conference and final plea cutoff in this criminal case on 

May 16, 2017. At that time, Defendant Jateesha Taylor made an oral motion for an adjournment 

of the current trial schedule to allow her to pursue an application to the newly-formed Restart 

Program. That motion was GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court enters the following schedule to 

manage the progress of the case. 

IT IS ORDERED that the trial dates are hereby altered as follows: 

Telephonic Status Conference: May 30, 2017 at 2:00pm 

Amended Pretrial Submissions: June 19, 2017 

Final Pretrial Conference: June 23, 2017 at 8:30am 

Voir Dire: June 23, 2017 at 9:00am 

Jury Trial 3: June 27, 2017 at 9:00am 

In addition, should Taylor choose to have a change in plea hearing, she must inform the 

Court by Monday, June 19, 2017. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the reasons set forth more fully on the record, IT IS 

ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (R. 241) is DENIED AS MOOT, and the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

D-3 JATEESHA TAYLOR, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cr-20007 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

 ORDER ADJOURNING TRIAL DATES 

2:15-cr-20007-LJM-DRG Doc # 251 Filed 05/16/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3182
2 

Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (R. 227) is DENIED AS MOOT, and the Motion to Allow 

Firearm as an Exhibit (R. 250) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time period between May 22, 2017 and June 27, 

2017 shall be excluded from the calculation under the Speedy Trial Act, give Taylor’s oral 

waiver of her right to a speedy trial under the 18 U.S.C. 3161(h) and agreement that the 

continuance requested is reasonable and necessary. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

Dated: May 16, 2017 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 16, 2017. 

s/Keisha Jackson 

Case Manager 

2:15-cr-20007-LJM-DRG Doc # 251 Filed 05/16/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3183
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1327

In re: TRAVANTI ROBERTS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00370-

TLW-1)

Submitted: July 20, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travanti Roberts, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1327 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Travanti Roberts petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court has 

unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for compassionate release. Roberts seeks an order 

from this court directing the district court to act. 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Mandamus relief is available only when there are 

no other means by which the relief sought could be granted and when the petitioner 

“show[s] that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 517 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and brackets 

omitted); see Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81. Unreasonable delay in the district court may be 

cause for mandamus relief. In re United States ex rel. Drummond, 886 F.3d 448, 450 (5th 

Cir. 2018) (collecting cases); cf. Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655, 661-62 (1978) 

(“There can be no doubt that, where a district court persistently and without reason refuses 

to adjudicate a case properly before it, the court of appeals may issue the writ.”). 

We conclude that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court 

so as to render any delay unreasonable. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition.∗

 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

∗ Notwithstanding our disposition on the current mandamus petition, we encourage 

the district court to act as expeditiously as possible in this matter.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1327 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1327 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
§ 1145.7 Termination. ( a ) If the incumbent carrier does not timely file a petition for termination, a prescription hereunder automatically renews at the end of the term established under § 1145.6(c). Automatic renewal is for the same term as the original term of the prescription. If the Board denies a petition to terminate the prescription, it will determine, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate renewal term based on the evidentiary record, not to exceed the original term of the prescription. At the end of the renewal term, if the incumbent carrier does not timely file a petition for termination, the prescribed agreement will automatically renew for the same number of years as the renewed term.
( b ) The Board will grant a petition to terminate a prescription if the incumbent rail carrier demonstrates that, for the most recent 12-week period prior to the filing of the petition to terminate, the incumbent rail carrier's service for similar traffic on average met all three performance standards under this part. This requirement includes a demonstration by the incumbent carrier that it has been able to meet, over the most recent 12-week period, the performance standards for similar traffic to or from the relevant terminal area.
( c ) The incumbent rail carrier may submit a petition to terminate a prescription not more than 180 days and not less than 150 days before the end of the current term of the prescription.
( d ) A reply to a petition to terminate is due within 15 days of the filing of the petition.
( e ) A rebuttal may be filed within 10 days of the filing of the reply.
( f ) The Board will endeavor to issue a decision on a petition to terminate within 90 days from the close of briefing. ( 1 ) If the Board does not act within 90 days from the close of briefing, the prescription automatically terminates at the end of the current term of the prescription.
( 2 ) If the Board does not issue a decision due to extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the Board, the prescription is automatically renewed for 30 days from the end of the current term. When there are extraordinary circumstances, the Board will issue an order alerting the parties that it will not issue a decision within the required time period. Under such circumstances, the Board will issue its decision as expeditiously as possible.
( 3 ) A prescribed agreement will continue in effect until 30 days after the Board serves a decision that grants a petition to terminate or after the end of the prescription period, whichever is later.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, July 20, 1995 (98), Para 98.25 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1167]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.98.25  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mrs. LOWEY:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to provide deficiency payments and land diversion 
     payments described in paragraph (1), or other payments 
     described in paragraph (2)(B), of section 1001 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) to any person when it is 
     made known to the Federal entity or official to which the 
     funds are made available that the person has an annual 
     adjusted gross income of $100,000 or more from off-farm 
     sources.

Yeas

158

It was decided in the

Nays

249

negative

Answered present

8
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 129 (Friday, July 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 37018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3313]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Date and Time: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: This meeting will be closed to the public.

Items To Be Discussed: 
    Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, 
U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.


Date and Time: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: This hearing will be open to the public.

Matter Before the Commission: Hybrid Communications.


Date and Time: Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).

Status: This meeting will be open to the public.

Items To Be Discussed:
    Correction and Approval of Minutes.
    Advisory Opinion 2007-08: Michael King by counsel, Marc Elias and 
Caroline Goodson.
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--Use of Campaign Funds for Donations 
to Non-Federal Candidates and Any Other Lawful Purpose Other Than 
Personal Use.
    Report of the Audit Division on Ted Poe for Congress.
    Management and Administrative Matters.

Person To Contact for Information: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-3313 Filed 7-3-07; 12:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CIVIL ACTION NO.:

 Plaintiff, HONORABLE:

vs.

DAVID TOWNSEND

Defendant,

COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

The United States of America, plaintiff, alleges that:

Jurisdiction

1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action 

pursuant to Article III, Section 2, U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.

Venue

2. The defendant is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan within the 

jurisdiction of this Court and may be served with service of process at 15800 

Bramell St., Detroit, MI 48223-1015.

The Debt – Account No. 2015A44577

3. The debt owed to the United States of America is as follows:

Case 5:15-cv-12513-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 6
A. Current Principal (after application of all 

prior payments, credits, and offsets) $2,809.11

B. Current Capitalized Interest Balance and 

Accrued Interest $5,445.87

C. Administrative Fee, Costs, Penalties $0.00

D. Credits previously applied (Debtor payments, 

credits, and offsets) $0.00

Total Owed $8,254.98

The Certificate of Indebtedness, attached as Exhibit “A”, shows the total 

owed excluding attorney’s fees and CIF charges. The principal balance and interest 

balance shown on the Certificate of Indebtedness is correct as the date of the 

Certificate of Indebtedness after application of all prior payments, credits and 

offsets. Prejudgment interest accrues at the rate of 8% per annum. 

Failure to Pay

4. Demand has been made upon the defendant for payment of the 

indebtedness, and the defendant has neglected and refused to pay the same.

WHEREFORE, USA prays for judgment:

A. For the sums set forth in paragraph 3 above, plus prejudgment 

interest through the date of judgment, all administrative costs allowed by law, and 

post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 and that interest on the 

judgment be at the legal rate until paid in full;

 2

Case 5:15-cv-12513-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 07/15/15 Page 2 of 6
B. For attorney’s fees to the extent allowed by law; 

C. Filing fee of $350.00 as premitted by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(2); 

and,

D. For such other relief which the Court deems proper.

Respectfully submitted,

 By: /s/ Craig S. Schoenherr, Sr.____________

CRAIG S. SCHOENHERR, SR. (P32245)

Attorney for Plaintiff

O'Reilly Rancilio PC

12900 Hall Rd Ste 350

Sterling Heights, MI 48313

Phone: (586) 726-1000

Fax: (586) 726-1560

cschoenherr@orlaw.com

 3

Case 5:15-cv-12513-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 07/15/15 Page 3 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-12513-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 07/15/15 Page 4 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-12513-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 07/15/15 Page 5 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-12513-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 07/15/15 Page 6 of 6
-----Original Message----- 

From: joseph.sweet@uconn.edu [mailto:joseph.sweet@uconn.edu] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:01 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Joseph Sweet 

404 Route 87 

Columbia, CT 06237
-----Original Message----- 

From: smyoung42@gmail.com [mailto:smyoung42@gmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:12 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Sharon Young 

149 Islington Street 

Portsmouth, NH 03801
98-2365.

#### Duquesne Light Co. v. Tracy.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 95-K-40, 95-K-71 and 95-K-72. On motion to brief constitutional issues separately and exceed page limitation. Motion denied.