alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R . 47 .5, the court has determined that this op in io n s hould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin5th Cir. R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20596 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee,

v. J OE L MI RA NDAJ I M I NEZ , a l s o k n o wn a s J o e lM i r a n d a J i me n e z , a l s o k n o wn as J o e J i m e ne z, a l so kno w n a s J o e lM i r and a Ram i r e z , a l s o kno w n a s Al f r e do S al gad o , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas , H ou st on D ivi si on

U SD C N o. 4: 08- C R

- 512- 1

B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * JoelM i ran d a Ji m i n ez pl ead ed gu i l t y t o i l l egally reenteri n g t h e U n i t ed St at es af

t erhavi ng bee n r em ove d f ol l ow i ng c onvi c t i on f oran aggr avat ed f

el ony. H e s e e k s a u to m a tic re -s e n te n c in gb e c a u s e t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r o n e o u s ly bel i eved t h at i tw as const rai n ed byour preceden tt o den y a cul t u ralassi m i l ati on d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e b e c a u s e o f h is e x te n s iv e , v io le n t c r im in a l h is to r y . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 28, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-20596 Document: 00511124885 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 20596

2 Ats en t e nc i ng, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nduc t e d at ho r o ugh r e vi e w o f t he
s e n t e n c i n gfa c t o r s o u t l i n e d i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a n dt h e r e l e v a n tc a s e l a w. T h e di st ri ctcourtconcl u ded t h at Ji m i n ez’ s m ot ion fo r a dow n w ard d epa rt u re s h o u ld b e d e n ie d in lig h t o f h is h is t o r y o f v io le n t o ffe n s e s . C o n t r a r yto J im in e z ’s
as s e r t i o n, h ow ever , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no ts t at e t hato urpr i o rpr e c e de nt prevente di t f

r om gr ant i ng t he m ot i on. Rathe r , i tt r eat ed t hos e c as es as persua sive a u t h ori t y an d concl u ded t h at a dow n w ard d epa rt u re w as not
w arran t ed i n t hi s c as e . The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni alw as no t“ba s e d o n t he
m i st aken bel i ef t hat t he c our t l ac ked di sc r et i on t o depar t
. ” Un it e d S t at e s v. G a r ay , 2 3 5 F
. 3 d 23 0 , 23 2 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 0 ). A ccord i n gly, w e lac k ju r is d i cti on to
r e vi e w t he di s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o nth a tad o wn wa r dd e p ar t ur e w as unwar r ant e d. Un i t ed S t ate s v. T

h am es , 2 1 4 F .3d 6 0 8 , 6 1 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-20596 Document: 00511124885 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2010
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL GARZA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0625 GEB JFM P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order filed January 24,

2005, this action was stayed pending exhaustion of state remedies as to two claims for relief. In

the same order, petitioner was directed to notify the court in writing within thirty days from the

date of any order by the California Supreme Court resolving his state exhaustion petition. On

May 11, 2006, petitioner filed the required notification and a first amended petition.

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of

constitutional rights is proved, respondents will be directed to file an answer to the first amended

petition.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00625-GEB -JFM Document 21 Filed 05/31/06 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

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The January 24, 2005 stay is lifted and the Clerk of the Court is directed to

reopen this action; 

2. Respondents are directed to file an answer to the first amended petition within

forty-five days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Respondents shall include with the answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to

the determination of the issues presented in the application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases; and

3. Petitioner's traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondents’ answer is filed. 

DATED: May 30, 2006.

/garz0625.100am

Case 2:04-cv-00625-GEB -JFM Document 21 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

http://www.southeastfloridareefs.net/uploads/images/CRI05-005C_FL_Map_Sm.jpg 6/20/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

MARLON CARTER

:

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4381

:

BEN VARNER, ET AL.

:

ORDER OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND NOW, this day of , , in accordance with the

procedure for the random assignment of habeas corpus cases, Local Civil Rule 72.1, and 28 U.S.C.

§636(b) (1) (B), it is hereby

ORDERED that the above-captioned case is referred to the Honorable JACOB P.

HART, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation.

BY THE COURT:

 

 HERBERT J. HUTTON, J.

civrr

Case 2:02-cv-04381-HH Document 2 Filed 07/30/2002 Page 1 of 1
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- Secure Payment System
- Contact Us

# Contact Us

For questions or concerns e-mail the SPS Production Support Section at:Production.Support.Section@fiscal.treasury.gov.

Last modified 05/26/23
Order filed February 16, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

___________

NO. 01-15-00220-CR

 01-15-00221-CR

 01-15-00222-CR

____________

GARY JAMES COX, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-CR-0183, 13-CR-1084, 14-CR-3651

ORDER
This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State’s Exhibit 2 and 

State’s Exhibit 7.

The exhibit clerk of the 122nd District Court is directed to deliver to the 

Clerk of this court the original of State’s Exhibit 2 and State’s Exhibit 7, on or 

before February 19, 2016. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, 

and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their 

inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State’s 

Exhibit 2 and State’s Exhibit 7, to the clerk of the 122nd District Court.

PER CURIAM
No. 49127.

#### Protests 774599-G/83049, etc., of Stern, McGivney & Co., Inc. (Chicago).

*243Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial the testimony produced showed that certain items were the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract. 47291, the record in which case was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the items of merchandise in the’ description of which appears the word “natural” were held dutiable at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1), as claimed.
----

----

III Informaciones

Comisión

----

DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE MEDIO AMBIENTE

Publicación de un puesto vacante de Consejero Principal (grado AD 14)

COM/2006/10033

(2006/C 262 A/01)

Proponemos

Un puesto de Consejero Principal para trabajar en los distintos ámbitos de competencia de la Dirección General y reunir análisis y conclusiones sobre una amplia gama de temas y cuestiones interrelacionados. En especial, sus tareas se centrarán en asuntos transversales que contribuyan a la coordinación interna de la DG y a reforzar la integración de las prioridades medioambientales en otras políticas comunitarias, por ejemplo: medio ambiente y transporte, movilidad sostenible, repercusiones para el cambio climático, etc.; medio ambiente y energía: energías renovables, uso más eficaz de los combustibles fósiles, etc.; medio ambiente y competitividad, por ejemplo: eficacia ecológica, costes de los daños medioambientales, equilibrio entre medio ambiente y beneficios económicos, relación con la Estrategia de Lisboa para el crecimiento y el empleo, etc.; impacto de los daños medioambientales en la salud humana.

Buscamos

El candidato deberá contar con profundos conocimientos y una sólida experiencia en la coordinación de una amplia gama de asuntos, preferiblemente tanto en el ámbito de la Comunidad como en el de los Estados miembros. Poseer experiencia en la integración del medio ambiente en otras políticas se considerará una ventaja. El candidato deberá poseer: buenas dotes negociadoras; excelente capacidad de comunicación escrita y oral; un buen conocimiento del mundo económico y empresarial. Se requiere experiencia en el desarrollo de políticas y un buen conocimiento de las instituciones de la Unión Europea.

Condiciones que deberá cumplir el candidato

El Consejero Principal será seleccionado y nombrado por la Comisión de acuerdo con sus procedimientos de selección y contratación de personal. Los sueldos y condiciones de empleo serán los establecidos en el Estatuto, para los funcionarios de grado AD 14 de las Comunidades Europeas. La Comisión aplica una política de igualdad de oportunidades.

En la siguiente dirección de Internet puede consultarse una descripción completa de las funciones, los criterios de selección y detalles para la presentación de solicitudes:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_en.htm.

El formulario de solicitud se encuentra en:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/personnel_administration/seniormanagementvacancies/index_en.html.

En caso de problemas técnicos de acceso, diríjanse a:

Admin-MANAGEMENT-ONLINE@ec.europa.eu.

El plazo para el envío de las solicitudes termina el 4 de diciembre de 2006 (las inscripciones en línea se cerrarán a las 12.00 horas, hora de Bruselas).

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Paul SELLECK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6127.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Milton Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Rudolf, Maher, Widenhouse & Fialko, Chapel Hill, NC, for appellant. Brian Lee Whisler, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Paul Selleck seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Selleck,*Nos. CR-95-80-V; CA-99-479-3-V-2 (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 13, 2000; entered Nov. 16, 2000). 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.*
EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
            ----------------------------------      


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statements of IBP, inc. on Form S-3 (File No.
33-64459) and on Form S-8 (File No. 33-19441) of our report
dated January 23, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of IBP,
inc. as of December 27, 1997 and December 28, 1996 and for each
of the three years in the period ended December 27, 1997, which
report is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on 
Form 10-K.


COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Omaha, Nebraska
March 25, 1998
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Darrel L. Smith,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0702 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

King, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoJune 28, 2005, plaintiff moved for an order compelling

prison officials to permit him access to copying services so he

could file unspecified discovery motions. June 29 and 30, 2005,

plaintiff filed discovery motions. Attached to the June 29

motion is a copy of a document styled, “Motion for a Request for

Interrogatories.”

Since plaintiff was able to attach a copy to the June 29 

motion, I find the impediment has been rescinded.

Accordingly, I hereby recommend plaintiff’s June 28, 2005, 

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 08/31/05 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

2

motion be denied.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

So ordered.

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 08/31/05 Page 2 of 2
March 6, 1964

Reap. Dec. 10694.

reappraisement R58/1348, etc.

#### American Bravo Co. *v.*United States,

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif. Reap. Dec. 10665. Motion by plaintiff.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENITO JULIAN LUNA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0627 KJM GGH P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

A hearing was scheduled for February 16, 2012, however the parties filed a

stipulation to move the hearing to March 23, 2012. The court’s law and motion calendar is on

Thursdays, therefore the hearing will be moved to March 22, 2012, at 10:00 am.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing scheduled for February

16, 2012, is moved to March 22, 2012.

DATED: January 9, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:AB

luna0627.ext

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 34 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : INFORMATION FILED

UNDER SECTION 851 OF 

 v. : TITLE 21, U.S.C. RELATING

TO INDICTMENT 05-54

RICARDO CRUZ : FILED JUNE 29, 2005

INFORMATION CHARGING PRIOR OFFENSE

Patrick L. Meehan, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

hereby accuses this defendant, who was charged on June 29, 2005, in the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute more

than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846 and

8411(a)(1), of having previously been convicted as described below:

1. On or about November 3, 1993, in Burlington County, New Jersey defendant Ricardo

Cruz was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment following his conviction for felony controlled 

substance violation on Indictment No. I323-87, arising from a March 9, 1987, arrest by 
Detectives from the Burlington County Prosecutors Office for violation of NJ 2421-19A1 and NJ

2421-20A1, a felonies under the State of New Jersey.

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK L. MEEHAN

United States Attorney

_________________________

LINDA DALE HOFFA

Chief, Criminal Division, Assistant United

States Attorney

_________________________

KENYA S. MANN

Assistant United States Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this day I caused a copy of the government’s information Charging

Prior Offenses to be served by first class mail delivery to:

Stephen P. Patrizio, Esquire

Dranoff & Patrizio, P.C.

117 S. 17 Street th

Philadelphia, PA 19103-5016

_________________________

KENYA S. MANN

Assistant United States Attorney

Date: __________________
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 Ingles Markets, Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending September
25, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brenda S. Tudor, 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 result of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|/s/ Brenda S. Tudor                                                                    
|Brenda S. Tudor Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer February 10, 2005
No. 49139.

Suit 4444.

#### *United States*v. *William Heyer.*

C. D. 738 affirmed. C. A. D. 259.
Order entered October 5, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00855-CV

DEUTSCHE BANK, NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST FOR 

THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. 

TRUST 2006-NC5, MORTGAGE PASS-THOUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 NC5,

Appellant

V.

KINGMAN HOLDINGS, LLC, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MAHOGANY 1857 LAND 

TRUST, Appellee

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-04363-2013

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 14, 2015 motion to strike a brief tendered to 

the Court by Kevin Alaimo, who is not a party to this appeal. The brief was received by the 

Court on September 10, 2015, but never filed with the Court. 

The motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
No. 66798.

#### American Wire & Fabric Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/19353 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1514).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7416

HENRY LEE BARKSDALE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD HUTCHINSON; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-99-

683-MJG)

Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 17, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Lee Barksdale, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the order from which Barksdale appeals was stamped

“filed” on October 4, 1999, it was entered on the district court’s

docket sheet on October 5, 1999, which is the effective date of the

district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); see

also Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Lee Barksdale seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court.* See Barksdale v. Hutchinson, No.

CA-99-683-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 5, 1999). 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
No. 46089.

#### Protests 41247-K, etc., of H. C. Worth & Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Ball et al. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60313 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus WOODROW BEAMER, Defendant-Appellant.

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

USDC No. 3:94CV043D
- - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Woodrow Beamer appeals from an order dismissing his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that his convictions for using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. We AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of this claim for essentially the same reasons setNo. 95-60313 -2- forth by the district court. United States v. Beamer , No. 3:94CV043D (N.D. Miss. March 9, 1995). We do not consider Beamer's new claim on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to show an active employment of the firearm. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993)), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995). Further, Beamer's claim that his sentence constituted racial discrimination is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.