alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4378 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMIE GIST,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (7:04-cr-00840-HMH)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 5, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Carlyle Steele, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jamie Gist pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute and to distribute more than fifty grams of

crack cocaine and more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000); operating a stash house, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), (a)(2) (West Supp. 2006); and possession

with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). The district court

sentenced Gist to 151 months of imprisonment, the bottom of the

properly calculated advisory sentencing guidelines range. Gist’s

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no

meritorious issues for appeal but challenging the adequacy of the

plea colloquy. Gist was informed of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

Counsel questions whether the district court complied

with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, in accepting Gist’s guilty plea. Because

Gist did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his

challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error.

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We

have carefully reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and

find no error in the district court’s acceptance of Gist’s guilty

plea. 
- 3 -

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record for any meritorious issues and have found none.

Accordingly, we affirm Gist’s convictions and sentence. This court

requires that counsel inform his 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,825
<INVENTORY>                                     60,203
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,714
<PP&E>                                          87,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,196
<BONDS>                                         43,434
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,688
<SALES>                                         62,096
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,096
<CGS>                                           48,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   433
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 725
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,680
<INCOME-TAX>                                       680
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
Table 4.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the
                United States:  Fourth Quarter 2002 and 2001

(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                    Fourth    Fourth   Standard
                                   quarter   quarter   error on  Standard     2002
Type                                 2002      2001      2002    error on   Percent
                                   estimate  estimate  estimate difference  of total

All housing units.................  124,009   121,963       213        314       100

  Occupied........................  108,999   107,633       226        332        88
    Owner occupied................   74,418    73,215       229        335        60
    Renter occupied...............   34,581    34,418       183        269        28

  Vacant..........................   15,010    14,330       129        187        12
    Year-round vacant.............   11,531    10,912       114        165         9
      For rent....................    3,638     3,336        66         94         3
      For sale only...............    1,308     1,353        40         59         1
      Rented or sold,
      awaiting occupancy..........      853       743        32         45         1
      Held off market.............    5,732     5,480        82        119         5
        For occasional use........    2,037     1,898        49         71         2
        Temporarily occupied
        by persons with
        usual residence elsewhere.    1,024     1,058        35         52         1
        For other reasons.........    2,671     2,524        56         81         2

    Seasonal vacant...............    3,479     3,418        64         94         3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                         13,503
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    205,072
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,412
<PP&E>                                         1,612,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,859,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,378,446
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    5,963
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     512,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,859,753
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  373,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (6)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (377,301)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (377,301)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (377,301)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.06)
        


</TABLE>
Table 10.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit for the United States and 
                  for Inside and Outside MAs:  Second Quarter 2002 and 2001

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)



                                                     Second quarter 2002
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       9.0        8.2       11.9
      For rent............................       2.7        2.8        2.3
      For sale only.......................       1.0        1.0        1.3
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.8        0.8        0.7
      Held off market.....................       4.5        3.7        7.6
        For occasional use................       1.5        1.2        2.8
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.8        0.8        0.9
        For other reasons.................       2.2        1.8        3.9

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.8        1.5        7.7

    Occupied..............................      88.1       90.2       80.4



                                                     Second quarter 2001
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       9.1        8.4       11.9
      For rent............................       2.6        2.7        2.4
      For sale only.......................       1.1        0.9        1.5
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.8        0.9        0.8
      Held off market.....................       4.6        3.9        7.2
        For occasional use................       1.6        1.3        2.7
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.9        0.9        0.9
        For other reasons.................       2.2        1.7        3.6

    Seasonal vacant.......................       3.1        1.6        8.4

    Occupied..............................      87.8       90.0       79.7
BOEM Seeks Public Involvement in Preparing an Environmental Assessment for the BP Exploration

(Alaska) Inc. Ancillary Activities in the Beaufort Sea Notice for the 2014 Open Water Season

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for BP

Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA) Ancillary Activities would take place in federal waters in the Beaufort Sea

during the 2014 open water season. These activities include:

 A Site Survey with an emphasis on obtaining two

‐ dimensional high

‐ resolution (2DHR) shallow

geohazard data would be obtained using an airgun array and a towed streamer.

 A Sonar Survey, using multibeam echosounder, sidescan sonar, subbottom profiler, and

magnetometer would be conducted over the Site Survey location and subsea pipeline corridor area.

BOEM is inviting the public to comment on issues that should be considered in preparing the EA.

BOEM received BPXA’s Ancillary Activities Notice for operations in federal waters on February 14, 2014. This

notice is available at:

http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_B OEM/BOEM_Regions/Alaska_Region/Leasing_and_Pl

ans/Plans/2014

‐ 02

‐ 14_BPXA_AAnotice_Liberty.pdf

.

BOEM is only accepting and considering public comments submitted through the Federal eRulemaking

Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov

, docket number BOEM

‐ 2014

‐ 0025). The deadline to receive these

comments is March 19 (12:00 midnight, EST). BOEM cautions that before including your address, phone

number, e

‐ mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware

that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available

at any time. While you may ask BOEM (prominently at the beginning of your submission) to withhold your

personal identifying information from public view, BOEM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.

BOEM will not consider anonymous comments.
#### The GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, d/b/a General Tire Service and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Winfred JONES, as surviving husband of Joan Jones, and Winfred Jones, individually, et al., Respondents.

No. 44171.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Second Quarter 2005 and 2006

                 (in percent)







                                    Second     Second         90-Percent

Area                                quarter    quarter  Confidence Interval (&plusmn;)<sup>a</sup>

                                     2005       2006    of 2006 rate of difference



United States.....................      68.6       68.7        0.5         0.4



  Inside Metropolitan

     Statistical Areas...........       67.1       67.3        1.3         0.5

    In principal cities..........       54.3       54.2        1.0         0.5

    Not in principal cities

    (suburbs).....................      75.8       76.0        1.2         0.5

  Outside Metropolitan

    Statistical Areas.............      76.2       75.9        2.6         0.7



 Northeast........................      64.7       65.4        0.9         0.8

 Midwest..........................      73.4       72.5        1.0         0.7

 South............................      70.4       70.4        0.9         0.6

 West.............................      63.8       64.7        1.2         0.8

 

    aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger the confidence interval 

is, in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.

Note:  Metropolitan Statistical Area data for 2005 and later are not comparable to earlier data.  Beginning in  first 

quarter 2005, the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey is using the new metropolitan and micropolitan definitions 

that were announced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in June 2003, and were based on the application of the 2000 

standards to Census 2000 data.  OMB announced updates as of December 2003, based on application of the 2000 standards to more recent

Census Bureau estimates.  In this report, outside Metropolitan Statistical Areas includes micropolitan and non-metropolitan statistical 

areas.  The December 2003 definitions are available at:  

http//www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metrodef.html and http:/www/census.gov/population/estimates/about metro.html.
#### MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, d/b/a Miami Shores County Club, Appellant, v. Mary BROWN and Roscoe Brown, jointly and severally, Appellees.

No. 73-522.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 11, 1973.

*590Adams, George & Wood, and John A. O’Connor, Miami, for appellant.

Engel & Palgon, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant below from an adverse judgment entered on a jury verdict. The action was brought by appellee Mary Brown, who will be referred to herein as the plaintiff, and her husband Roscoe Brown, alleging injury to Mary Brown caused by negligence of defendant, with derivative damages sought by her husband. The defendant denied negligence and pleaded contributory negligence.

The plaintiff was a member of an organization which was using the ballroom of the defendant’s club building, on a rental basis. She was seated at one end of the “head table” which was on a raised platform. The table, covered by a cloth, was in unconnected sections which were not fastened to the platform. When the end table or part of the table at which the plaintiff was seated moved and slid off the platform, causing dishes and glasswear to fall and break, the plaintiff fell thereon and suffered certain injuries.

Appellant contends the court erred (1) by denying its motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs’ case and at the close of all of the evidence; (2) by permitting testimony of an expert witness presented by the plaintiff; and (3) by denying defendant’s motion to order a remit-titur.

Upon consideration of appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument, we find them to be without merit. On the evidence presented the court properly submitted the issues of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury. The admission of the expert testimony was not error. See Myers v. Korbly, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 215. In contending the verdict was excessive the appellant argues inadequacy of evidentiary support therefor and that the size of the verdict was such that it should shock the judicial conscience. The determination of damages to be awarded, based on the evidence and the charge of the court was a matter within the province of the jury. Upton v. Hutchinson, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 20, 21; Sproule v. Nelson, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 478, 481, 76 A.L.R.2d 1066; Talcott v. Holl, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So.2d 420, 422. The trial judge, when importuned to order a remittitur refused to do so. His denial thereof and of a motion for new trial re*591veals that the court did not regard the size of the verdict to be shocking to the judicial conscience, nor do we. The verdict had support of competent substantial evidence.

Affirmed.
No. 11029.

#### The Village of Belle Center *v.*Stewart.

Decided September 28, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Logan county.

*Mr. J. C. Hover*and *Mr. Duncan Dow,*for plaintiff in error.

*482
      *Messrs. Briggs & Stewart,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Spear and Price, JJ., concur.
Written Statement of the Chairman of the Board, President and
           Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Midwest Express Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Timothy E. Hoeksema
----------------------------
Timothy E. Hoeksema

November 14, 2002
#### David Chester GORKO v. STATE.

No. 36544.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 199 So.2d 132.
#### Robert Edward TRACE, Jr. v. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT.

No. 35950.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Rehearing Denied April 20, 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Form 10-Q Issuer
  (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer as of the
dates and for the periods indicated in the Form 10-Q.
 /s/ Larry L. Enterline
    
    /s/ Amy BobbittLarry L. Enterline
    
    Amy BobbittChief Executive Officer
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting OfficerAugust 5, 2009
    
    August 5, 2009
SCWC-17-0000427

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

 STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES THOMPSON,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000427; CRIMINAL NO. 97-0-2401)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and

Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Browning,

in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant James Thompson’s

Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on December 23, 2018 is

hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The

parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding

scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 31, 2019.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ R. Mark Browning

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000427

31-JAN-2019

11:43 AM