alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-50714

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jaime Pando, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:22-CR-69-1

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jaime Pando appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent 

to distribute, and distribute, five grams or more of methamphetamine

(“meth”). Finding no error, we affirm.

Pando maintains that the district court erred by refusing a mitigatingrole adjustment even though he acted as a minor participant for purposes of 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Pando contends that during the time of his arrest, a co-

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 11, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50714 Document: 00516816694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023
No. 22-50714

2

conspirator gave him the meth to attempt to distance himself from the 

offense conduct. Pando states that the drug operation was relatively small 

and that his actions were dissimilar compared to those of other participants. 

Pando avers he was not the source of the meth, nor did he receive a larger 

share of the drug proceeds. He also posits that he is not the mastermind of 

the conspiracy and did not perform tasks crucial to the success of the 

enterprise. 

Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual 

determination reviewed for clear error. United States v. Gomez-Valle, 

828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “A factual finding is 

not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.” 

Id. “[W]hen a sentence is based on an activity in which a defendant was 

actually involved, § 3B1.2 does not require a reduction in the base offense 

level even though the defendant’s activity in a larger conspiracy may have 

been minor or minimal.” United States v. Stanford, 823 F.3d 814, 852 (5th 

Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

The record shows Pando was sentenced based only on the activity in 

which he was involved, specifically the quantity of meth found on him at the 

arrest and that he admitted having sold and purchased. Although Pando 

alleged the meth belonged to a co-conspirator, he failed to provide evidence 

rebutting the presentence report’s contrary conclusion. See United States v. 

Taylor, 277 F.3d 721, 725–27 (5th Cir. 2001). In addition, Pando does not 

point to evidence indicating the roles of his co-conspirators or showing that 

his role was limited to transportation and storage. Therefore, the district 

court did not clearly err in denying Pando a mitigating role. See United States 

v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203, 209–10 (5th Cir. 2016). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-50714 Document: 00516816694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

501 “I” STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

Timmy O’Neil Charity

 DEFAULT JUDGMENT

v.

Case No. CIV S-04-0444 GEB GGH PC

Thomas Carroll, Warden; et al

___________________________

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED default judgment is hereby

ENTERED against defendant:

THOMAS CARROLL, WARDEN

October 13, 2005

JACK L. WAGNER, CLERK

By: __M. Marciel_________

M. Marciel, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:04-cv-00444-GEB-GGH Document 21 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2476

MIGUEL ANGEL ARIAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BELL ATLANTIC NETWORK SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-2191-Y) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Hermina, John Hermina, HERMINA LAW GROUP, Laurel, Maryland, for Appellant. R. Michael Smith, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We note that because Arias does not challenge the districtcourt’s finding that some of his claims were time-barred, he therefore has abandoned those claims on appeal. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that issues not briefed or argued on appeal are deemed abandoned). We also decline to consider for the first time on appeal Arias’ claimsof retaliation related to his December 1996 charge of discrimination. See First Va. Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil Inc. , 206 F.3d 404, 407 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider issues raised for first time on appeal); Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised for first timeon appeal generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice). 2 PER CURIAM: Miguel Arias appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer in this employment discrimination action and denying his motion to compel discovery. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendices, and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. * See Arias v. Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. (D. Md. Aug. 2 & Oct. 7, 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 59531.

protest 248319-K (New York).

#### A. J. Van Dugteren & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

VICTORIA SZURANT, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-282

)

JOSEF AARONSON, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 21, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130

from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; 

Donna Padar Berlin, Judge.

Victoria D. Szurant, pro se.

Allison M. Perry of Florida Appeals, P.A.

Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41051

Summary Calendar

 

ANTHONY K. CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

A. JEFFCOAT, Captain; TERRY WILLIAMSON,

Sergeant; JERRY P. ROGERS, Lieutenant; 

JOHN V. WELCH, JR., Correctional Officer III;

WILLIAM R. WATTS, Captain; JUAN E VASQUEZ, 

Correctional Officer III; BOBBY D. LEEDER, 

Correctional Officer III; TIMOTHY D. GREEN,

Sergeant; DAVID E. BARROW, Correctional Officer

III; RONNIE D. GATEWOOD, Correctional Officer III;

ROBERT HERRERA, Assistant Warden; HAROLD W. GARROW,

Correctional Officer III; PAUL W. PACE, Major;

FREDERICK L. BROWN, Correctional Officer III;

UNIDENTIFIED CASTEEL, Correctional Officer III;

JESSIE L. PIERCE, Sergeant,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-961

- - - - - - - - - -

April 1, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony K. Chapman appeals a dismissal of his cause of

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in favor of the named 
No. 98-41051 

-2-

defendants. He has not, however, briefed the issue that was the

basis of the district court’s dismissal -- his failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. Pro se litigants must brief arguments

in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225

(5th Cir. 1993). Claims not adequately argued in the body of the

brief are deemed abandoned on appeal. See id. Because Chapman

has not briefed the only potential issue on appeal, and because

the face of the record does not reveal compelling factors

mandating reversal, the decision of the district court should be

affirmed.

Chapman has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 

A court should appoint counsel to represent a § 1983 appellant

only in exceptional circumstances. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82,

86 (5th Cir. 1987). Chapman’s factual and legal issues are not

complex, and Chapman has shown himself capable of setting forth

factual scenarios. He has not shown exceptional circumstances

sufficient to require appointment of counsel.

Chapman’s final motion is for a preliminary injunction

“giving Appellant complete security.” Chapman has requested that

various defendants be barred from ever being in Chapman’s

presence because they allegedly made various threats against

Chapman, although he does not allege physical violence was taken

against him. Chapman has not met the heavy burden required for

the granting of a preliminary injunction, and his motion should

be denied. See Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th

Cir. 1991).
No. 98-41051 

-3-

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motions

of the appellant are DENIED.
=ME 

court did not abuse its discretion by determining that a mistrial was 

required by manifest necessity and did not violate Hoffman's double 

jeopardy rights. Seeid. at 702, 220 P.3d at 692 ("A deadlocked jury is the 

classic example of the 'manifest necessity' for mistrial before final verdict 

that will permit retrial without offense to a defendant's double jeopardy 

rights."). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00289-CR

VICTOR CUA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 12 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. 

No. 1945086).

This case is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 9, 

2015. After due consideration, the Court grants the appellant’s motion to dismiss 

the appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 14, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Bland, and

Massengale.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ISS GROUP, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      64,184,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,705,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   292,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,241,000
<PP&E>                                       2,468,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 572,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              72,295,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,282,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  63,932,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                72,295,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,073,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,778,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,639,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,639,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,639,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
Part 2

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

ID

Simple or

 Special Name Type Description Error Message 

99 SPECIAL

USSGL Reimbursable Flag "R" Restriction Compound

The use of some USSGL accounts with Reimbursable Flag "R" is limited to specific TAS.

This TAS is not permitted to report spUSSGL accounts with Reimbursable "R". 

100 SPECIAL

Restricted Use of USSGL accounts 415100 and 415700 on Expired TAS Compound

Reporting USSGL accounts 415100 and 415700 on expired TAS is restricted to specific TAS.

This TAS is not permitted to report Uaccounts 415100 or 415700. 

101 SPECIAL

Main Account 3604 USSGL Restrictions Compound

TAS with Main Account 3608 are only permitted to report specific USSGL accounts.

USSGL account is not valid for TAS wMain Account 3608. 

102 SPECIAL

Main Account 3604 USSGL Restrictions Compound

TAS with Main Account 3609 are only permitted to report specific USSGL accounts.

USSGL account is not valid for TAS wMain Account 3609. 

103 SPECIAL

Main Account 3604 USSGL Restrictions Compound

TAS with Main Account 3610 are only permitted to report specific USSGL accounts.

USSGL account is not valid for TAS wMain Account 3610. 

104 SPECIAL

Restricted Use of specific USSGL accounts with Reimburseable Flage "R" and Financing Account Indicator "G" Compound

Reporting some USSGL accounts with Reimburseable Flage "R" and Financing Account Indicator "G" is restricted to specific TAS.

This TAS is not permitted to report soUSSGL accounts with Reimburseable "R". 

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Validations - Summary

Bulletin No. 2019-14 DRAFT VII VSR - 1
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN ROBERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0772 DFL KJM P

vs.

F. BATES,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve a response to

defendant’s January 25, 2006 motion for summary judgment. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's February 13, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve a response to defendant’s January 25, 2006 motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s

reply, if any, shall be filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: February 21, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

robe0772.36

Case 2:04-cv-00772-DFL -KJM Document 33 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-2001
<CASH>                                         428,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,602,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                   304,074
<INVENTORY>                                 13,105,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,675,319
<PP&E>                                       5,485,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                 857,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,361,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,624,557
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,416,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,361,813
<SALES>                                     40,556,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,556,406
<CGS>                                       27,975,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,370,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (44,827)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (349,937)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,824,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,399,578
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,424,615
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,424,615
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
 
 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 Quarterly Report of Warning Model Management, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian Bonar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:
 
 (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.
 
 
 May 24 , 2004
 
 /s/ Brian Bonar
 Brian Bonar, Chief Executive Officer
 and Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,424
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          12,078
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,390
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      5,901
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          74,401
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            75,115
<LOANS>                                        194,885
<ALLOWANCE>                                        752
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 303,471
<DEPOSITS>                                     248,892
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,392
<LONG-TERM>                                        552
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,196
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,439
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 303,471
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,563
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,267
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,186
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,198
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,069
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       29
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    710
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,437
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       923
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     2.8
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,721
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   723
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                        29
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  752
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            752
        


</TABLE>
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

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0887 GEB GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On May 31, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file

objections to the May 19, 2005, order denying his request for appointment of counsel. The court

construes the request to be seeking an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 31, 2005,

request for an extension of time is granted; plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the May 19,

2005, order is due thirty days from the date of this order.

DATED: 6/15/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

high887.eot UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 38 Filed 06/16/05 Page 1 of 1