alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lonnie Ray PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4032.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 20, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Leesa Washington, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, SC, for appellant.

Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, SC, for appellee.

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Ray Patterson was convicted in the United States District Court for the *144District of South Carolina, pursuant to his guilty plea, of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West 2000). Patterson was sentenced to thirty-seven months imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release, with $745 in restitution. Patterson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the adequacy of the guilty plea and the propriety of the sentence.

Counsel first asserts that the district court failed to comply with the dictates of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in conducting Patterson’s guilty plea colloquy. Under Rule 11(h), any variance from the rule’s requirements that does not affect substantial rights is to be disregarded. We accord deference to the manner by which the district court conducts the Rule 11 proceeding. *United States v. DeFusco,*949 F.2d 114, 116-17 (4th Cir.1991). Having carefully reviewed the transcript of Patterson’s plea proceeding, we perceive no error, harmless or otherwise. Therefore, this claim lacks merit.

Next, counsel asserts that the district court erred in calculating Patterson’s sentencing guideline range and in imposing a sentence of thirty-seven months imprisonment. Having reviewed the relevant materials, we conclude that the district court properly calculated the sentencing range under the *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(1998). The district court imposed the lowest possible sentence within that range, and there is no appellate review of a sentence within a properly calculated range. *United States v. Jones,*18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir.1994); *United States v. Porter,*909 F.2d 789, 794-95 (4th Cir.1990). Therefore, we conclude that this claim lacks merit as well.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of *Anders*and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Patterson’s conviction and sentence.

This Court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Phone Call For Catalyst Analysis Cost

Date: 9/26/11

Vendor: MEGTEC - http://www.megtec.com/index.php?language=en

Debbie Devory

1-920-337-1479

Caller: Philip Crawford (ERG)

Notes from Call:

Ms. Devory indicated that costs for catalyst analysis vary based on type and size of structure. Ms. 

Devory stated that a typical performance analysis for 1/8, 1/4 bead or monolith catalyst ranges from 

approximately $700-$1,000 dollars. She also noted that a contamination analysis is an additional $300. 

Ms. Devory noted that larger RCO (regenerative catalytic oxidizer) and ceramic type catalysts 

performance tests can range from $1,500-$2,500. 

Ms. Devory indicated that typical shutdowns of catalytic oxidizers required about 1 operating shift for 

sufficient cooling to collect a sample. She noted that larger units may take longer to cool.
From: erix450@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:42:25 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Eric Ochoa

San Dimas, CA 91773
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

JOE and LAURA SPRINKLE,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) C05-1898 JPD

SB&C LTD, a/k/a Skaagit Bonded Collectors,

et al.,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

Based upon the joint oral representations of counsel that the parties do waive a trial to a 

jury, the jury trial scheduled for Monday, September 25, 2006, is hereby stricken and the Court 

will conduct a trial to the bench on the issue of damages. The trial will commence on Tuesday,

September 26, 2006, at 9:00am, in Courtroom 12A, U.S. Courthouse, Seattle, Washington.

Counsel will adhere to the following schedule:

The proposed pretrial order and trial briefs are to be filed by 4:00pm, Friday, September 22, 2006. 

In addition, trial exhibits, pre-marked pursuant to local rule, are due to the Clerk by 4:00pm,

Friday, September 22, 2006. The Court will conduct a Final Pretrial Conference, by telephone, at

11:30pm, on Monday, September 25, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 45 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 MINUTE ORDER

Dated this 19th day of September, 2006

 /s/ Peter H. Voelker 

Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 45 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER A.K.A.

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MELENDEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER 

This Bivens action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. The

only remaining defendant is Michael Melendez. The remaining claims address the constitutionality of the

telephone system available for plaintiff. All other defendants and all other claims were dismissed at

summary judgment. See, (Dkt. # 129 and 132).

Mr. Marks now litigates under a sanction as a result of improper filings. As part of that sanction

documents filed by Mr. Marks are submitted under seal for court review. Mr. Marks has filed three

documents since entry of the sanction order (Dkt. # 168, 169, and 170). Document 170 directly relate to

the sanctions and contain the type of material that lead to the sanctions order. Document 170 will remain

sealed with no further court action on either document. 

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 175 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

Documents 168 and 169 are ordered unsealed. This action was stayed on August 31, 2007. The

court will not consider Mr. Marks ex-parte motions for injunctive relief, (document 168), while the stay is

in effect. No further action on this motion is required by any party at this time. Document 169 is a

response to a court order to show cause. That document is now unsealed and available to all parties.

Also pending before the court is a motion to file an amicus brief on behalf of plaintiff (Dkt. # 171). 

That matter is noted of October 12, 2007. The parties may submit responses to the motion but in all other

respects this action remains stayed.

The clerk’s office is directed to send copies of this letter to plaintiff and to counsel for defendants

and to the party seeking to file an amicus brief.

DATED this 18 day of September, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate 

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 175 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 69272.

#### Marconi Instruments, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 255184-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of voltmeters and similar articles the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. G. *L. Electronics, Inc., Arrow Sales, Inc.*(49 CCPA 111, C.A.D. 804), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 65196.

#### T. R. Booth & Company *v.*United States,

protest 60/7504-11291 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Case No. 6,615.

#### HINDRY v. The PRISCILLA.

[Bee, 1.] 1

District Court, D. South Carolina.

1792.

Salvage — Deuei-ict.

One half decreed by way of salvage, in case of a vessel found derelict on the high seas.

[Cited in Plinn v. Leander, Case No. 4.870.']

[This was a libel for salvage by William Hindry against the schooner Priscilla.]

BEE, District Judge.

This is the first case, since my appointment as judge of the court of admiralty, of a vessel ■ libelled as wreck found on the high and open seas; and, as far as the records of the court have been traced, the first that appears to have come before the court at any time. I have carefully considered the schooner Priscilla’s situation, and the law relative thereto, and do pronounce the said vessel to be a wreck found drifting at sea. without any living animal on board, as specified in the libel, and proved in court by two witnesses. I condemn her accordingly; with her tackle, furniture, and apparel, as appurtenances found on board. I also order and direct that the marshal of this district do, on the 20th day of this month, after fifteen days’ notice in one of the gazettes of Charleston, expose to sale, and sell at public outcry for the most money that can be obtained, the said schooner, with her appurtenances as aforesaid. And that, after paying out of the proceeds of such sale all the fees, costs, and charges of this suit, and the expenses of the sale, he pay, to the libel-lants, the master, mariners, and owners of the brigantine Mentor, one half of the net proceeds of such sale, as salvage, for securing and bringing into port the said schooner. I order that the marshal deposit the other half-part of said net proceeds in the Branch Bank of the United States in this city; subject to *202the future order of this court,' and for the use of the former owner or owners of the Priscilla, or other person or persons by him or them duly authorized, and applying for the same. I further order that due notice thereof be giren by the marshal, in one of the gazettes printed in Charleston, once in every month for twelve months ensuing. And that ■the marshal do, as soon as the sales are closed, render a due and just account of all payments and disbursements made for and on account of the said schooner.
Case 2:05-cv-01995-JLR Document 21 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 64578.

#### Quimet Stay & Leather Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/5113 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question, invoiced as “4 casks Artificial resin harmless,” was appraised as entered and that no appeal was filed by the collector, although on liquidation he used a higher value, it was held that 'the proper dutiable value of the merchandise was the entered value, as represented by the final appraised value.
No. 66068.

Appeal 5076.

#### United States *v.*A. N. Deringer, Inc.

A.R.D. 127. Appeal dismissed July 21,1961.
From: lhaas91@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:45:09 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Linda Haas

Glen Burnie, MD 21061
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JONATHAN JOEL PUPPO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 548 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of January, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
No. P66/275. —

#### Winter, Wolff & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 60/23602, etc. (Los Angeles).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of hinge-hanger bolts, carriage bolts, etc., similar in all material respects to those the subject of Winter, *Wolf &*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 173, C.D. 2528), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: Wdewilde@iw.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:14:47 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

ERMA DEWILDE

Lennox, SD 57039
IV 

House Calendar No. 129 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 703 

[Report No. 110–360] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3648) to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude discharges of indebtedness on principal 

residences from gross income, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2007 

Mr. CARDOZA, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3648) to amend 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude discharges 

of indebtedness on principal residences from gross income, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 3648) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

4 exclude discharges of indebtedness on principal residences 

5 from gross income, and for other purposes. All points of 

6 order against consideration of the bill are waived except 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 703 RH 

1 those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 

2 amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 

3 the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the 

4 bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of 

5 the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, 

6 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 

7 be considered as read. All points of order against provi8 sions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 

9 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 

10 amended, to final passage without intervening motion ex11 cept: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 

12 by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

13 Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to 

14 recommit with or without instructions. 

15 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3648 pursuant 

16 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

17 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid18 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

19 the Speaker. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

House Calendar No. 129 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 703 

[Report No. 110

–360] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3648) 

poses. residences from gross income, and for other purexclude discharges of indebtedness on principal to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

OCTOBER 2, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyand oil resources of a part of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California**
 
Report | Plates: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:753
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000959131
 
August 2, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                    5,639,470
<SECURITIES>                                861,625
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,107,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                               1,511,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            261,030
<PP&E>                                    3,328,472
<DEPRECIATION>                            2,542,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           11,338,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,458,130
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      4,891
<OTHER-SE>                               11,337,925
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             11,338,852
<SALES>                                   3,015,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          3,015,304
<CGS>                                     1,013,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             1,013,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            972,730
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            2,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (309,824)
<INCOME-TAX>                                250,510
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (63,589)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      0
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0



</TABLE>