alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 95-40569

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROLAND ANGELLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

(1:95-CV-153)

 

January 15, 1996

Before GARWOOD, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

Roland Angelle appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
2

motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Angelle contends that

the sentencing court should not have imposed a four-point increase

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 to his offense level for being an

organizer or leader. Angelle also contends that counsel was

ineffective because he failed to contest the four-level increase,

he filed a memorandum less than twenty-four hours before the

sentencing hearing, and he did not appeal the four-level increase.

Finally, Angelle contends that the district court erred in

dismissing his section 2255 motion without affording him the

opportunity to file a traverse or objections to the government’s

response.

We have reviewed the district court’s decision and find no

reversible error. Defense counsel filed objections to the PSR,

which were addressed in an addendum to the PSR, and also a

sentencing memorandum, each of which urged, among other things,

that the PSR’s proposed four-level enhancement for role in the

offense was improper. At sentencing the district court expressly

stated that it had considered the objections and the memorandum and

found the four-level enhancement proper based on the PSR (the

district court did sustain the objections and memorandum as to

acceptance of responsibility). The record, particularly the PSR,

adequately supports the four-level enhancement. There is nothing

to show either that counsel’s performance was constitutionally

deficient or that Angelle was prejudiced thereby, and there is

nothing to indicate that Angelle ever expressed any desire to

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision.
3

AFFIRMED
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

DARRYL ANTONIO WRIGHT, a/k/a Kimo

,

Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. ( 3:19

- cr

- 00986

- TLW

- 8 )

Submitted : May 20, 2024 Decided: June 7, 2024

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.

Darryl Antonio Wright , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6743 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/07/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Darryl Antonio Wright appeals the district court’s order construing his sentence

reduction motion as a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

and dismissing it without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Wright

also appeals the court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. The record discloses

that Wright filed his motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which does not require

exhaustion, and sought relief based upon U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1

.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order s and remand with instructions t o consider

Wright’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6743 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/07/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Milt MILLMAN, Appellant, v. HOWARD JOHNSON’S COMPANY, et al., Appellees.

No. 87-2160.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 15, 1988.

*902Jeffrey M. Liggio, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Hubert & Tompkins and Joseph Hubert, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Millman, the plaintiff below, won a jury verdict of $50,000 in damages — reduced by fifty per cent comparative negligence— against a Key West Howard Johnson’s motel. The claim was based upon the appel-lee’s negligence1 in failing to protect Mill-man, a jewelry salesman who was a guest at the hotel, from an armed robber who broke into his locked room, held him up at gun point, bound and gagged him, and then escaped with all his property. After the trial, the lower court reduced the verdict and judgment to $500 pursuant to section 509.111(1), Florida Statutes (1983),2 on the ground that the statutory prerequisites for the recovery of more than $1,000 (less $500 representing fifty per cent comparative negligence3) had not been satisfied. This ruling was erroneous.

Even to the extent that it applies, section 509.111(1) limits an innkeeper’s liability only as to the value of personal property which is stolen from or lost by a hotel guest. It clearly has no effect upon the damages recoverable for mental pain and suffering, anguish, humiliation, and other personal injury which are appropriate elements of damages in a case such as this, 4 Fla.Jur.2d Assault — Civil Aspects § 18 (1978); 24 Fla.Jur.2d False Imprisonment § 10 (1981), which Millman specifically pled and concerning which he testified and the jury was instructed. Since the record concerning the plaintiff’s personal damages fully supports the difference between the $1,000 in awardable property loss and the $50,000 award, the judgment under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment in Millman’s favor for $25,000 in accordance with the jury verdict.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

1

. Howard Johnson’s does not challenge the jury finding to this effect.

2

. 509.111 Liability for property of guests.— (1) The operator of a public lodging establishment is under no obligation to accept for safekeeping *any moneys, securities, jewelry, or precious stones of any kind belonging to any guest,*and, if such are accepted for safekeeping, he shall not be liable for the loss thereof unless such loss was the proximate result of fault or negligence of the operator. However, the liability of the operator shall be limited to $1,000 for such loss, if the public lodging establishment gave a receipt for the property (stating the value) on a form which stated, in type large enough to be clearly noticeable, that the public lodging establishment was not liable for any loss exceeding $1,000 and was only liable for that amount if the loss was the proximate result of fault or negligence of the operator, [e.s.]

3

.We express no view on the correctness of this reduction.
50204.

#### TERRELL v. THE STATE.

Submitted February 4, 1975

Decided April 14, 1975.

*Robert M. Coker, Public Defender,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Carole E. Wad, Joseph J. Drolet, Wallace Speed, Assistant District*
      *561
      *Attorneys,*for appellee.

*560Quiliian, Judge.

The defendant was convicted on three counts of the sale of heroin. An appeal was filed and the case is here for review.

1. The defendant contends that it was error to admit in evidence 15 glassine bags and their contents which had been purchased from the defendant because only a portion of the bags had been proved to contain heroin. This contention is without merit. There was a sufficient foundation laid for the introduction of the items and it was for the jury to determine their persuasive value. See *Grantling v. State,*229 Ga. 746 (2) (194 SE2d 405).

2. While the defendant now argues that it was error for a witness for the state to refuse to identify his informant, no such objection was made during the trial. "A party cannot during the trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later.” *Foster v. State,*230 Ga. 186 (1) (195 SE2d 902).

3. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Panned, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.*
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection
 AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
 ACTION: General Notice.
 SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker licenses and all associated permits are cancelled without prejudice. Name
License No.
Issuing portDependable International Services and Transport, Inc.
12574
New Orleans.Professional Customs Brokers, Inc
22821
San Juan.BAX Global, Inc
13717
Los Angeles.Air-Worthy Custom Brokers Corp
10165
New York.Horizon Logistics, LLC
28432
Dallas.Sandra L. Smith
15266
Dallas.Barry E. Booth
09627
San Francisco.Sandra K. Grider
05684
San Francisco.
 Dated: March 13, 2012. Richard F. DiNucci, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.


[FR Doc. 2012-6657 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
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 Quarterly Report of Global Services Partners Acquisition
      Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2007 (the
‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, Avinash Vashistha, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
      President 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:




1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      December 13, 2007




By: /s/
      Avinash
      Vashistha


Avinash
      Vashistha


Chief
      Financial Officer and Executive Vice President


(Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PHYSIC IANS FOR INTEGRITY IN M EDIC AL RESEAR C H, INC ., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M AR GARET HAM B UR G, C om m issione r of Food a nd Drug Administra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-56119 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-08334-GAFFM O M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Gary A. Fe e ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 13, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, N.R . SM ITH, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly dism isse d Phy sic ia

ns for Inte g rity

in M e dic a l R e se arc h, Inc .’ s (“ PIM R ” ) c om pla int with pre

judic e for la c k of sta

nding. For a

n a ssoc iation like PIM R

to ha ve sta nding to sue

on be ha lf of its m e m

be rs, the 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pa ge 2 of 3

m e m b e rs m ust “ othe rwise have sta

nding to sue

in the i r own right.” Frie nds of the Earth, Inc . v . Laidlaw

Env tl. Se rv

s. (TOC ), Inc
. , 528 U.S. 167, 181 (2000). Dr. Ste v e Gupta , the only

m e m be r of PIM R

tha t the c om pla int a lle ge s ha s sta

nding, would not ha

ve sta nding to bring this a

c tion in his own right. W e a ssum e for purpose s of a rgum e nt tha

t Dr. Gupta ’ s a lle ge d injurie s a re suffic i e ntly

“ c onc re te and pa

rtic ula riz e d” and “ a c tua l or im

m ine nt,” a s oppose d to

“ c o nje c tura l or hy

p othe t ic a l,” to support sta nding. N RDC v . EPA , 735 F.3d 873, 878 (9th C i r. 2013). Dr. Gupta ’ s first a lle ge d injury , for unc om pe nsat e d tim e spe nt c ounse ling pa

tie nts a b o ut Ala ir, is not fairly

tra c e a ble to the c ha lle nge d FDA a c tion. Id. As Dr. Gupta a c knowle dge s in his opening brie f on a ppe a l, whe the r he is c om p e n sate d for tim e spe nt c ounse ling pa tie nts is a func tion of the re im burse m e nt sc he dule for offic e visits set by othe r c om pone nts of thefe de ra l gove rnm e nt, not by

the FDA. The se c ond a

nd third a lle ge d injurie s, for lost pa tie nts a nd loss of c re dibility , will oc c ur only

if one of Dr. Gupta ’ s pa

tie nts m a k e s an indepe nde nt c hoic e — e ithe r to find a nothe r phy s ic ia

n or to vie wDr. Gupta

le ss fa vora bly a s a re sult of his a dvic e a bout Ala ir. B e c a

use Dr. Gupta ’ s the ory

of sta nding with re spe c t to the se injurie s “ re st[s] o n

spe c ulation a

bout thede c isions of inde pe nde nt a c tors,” thePa ge 3 of 3

injurie s a re not fa irly

tra c e a ble to theFDA. C

lappe r v . Amne

sty Int’l USA , 133 S. C t. 1138, 1148–50 (2013). PIM R ’ s m otion for supplem e nta l brie fing, file d on Fe brua ry 19, 2014, is de nie d. AFFIRM E D .
Exhibit 32




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 Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q filed on November 12, 2010 for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary C. Evans, chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(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.




November 12, 2010




/s/ Gary C. EvansGary C. Evans,

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q filed on November 12, 2010 for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald D. Ormand, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(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.




November 12, 2010




/s/ Ronald D. OrmandRonald D. Ormand,

Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 21

HUDSON HOTELS CORPORATION

List of Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                State of Incorporation or
Name                                    Organization             Doing Business As
----                            -------------------------        -----------------
<S>                                    <C>                   <C>
Watertown Hotel Corp.                  New York              Watertown Hotel Corp.
Delray Beach Hotel Corp.               New York              Delray Beach Hotel Corp.
Brookwood Funding Corp.                New York              Brookwood Funding Corp.
950 Jefferson Hotel Corp.              New York              950 Jefferson Hotel Corp.
Victor Hotel Corp.                     New York              Victor Hotel Corp.
Canandaigua Hotel Corp.                New York              Canandaigua Hotel Corp.
Hudson Tonawanda Corp.                 New York              Hudson Tonawanda Corp.
HHC Management Corp.                   New York              HHC Management Corp.
Hudson Hotels Properties Corp.         New York              Hudson Hotels Properties Corp.
HH Properties-Tonawanda, Inc.          New York              HH Properties-Tonawanda, Inc.
HH Properties-I, Inc.                  New York              HH Properties-I, Inc.
HH Properties-II, Inc.                 New York              HH Properties-II, Inc.
HH Bridge G.P., Inc.                   Virginia              HH Bridge GP, Inc.
</TABLE>
#### Coral MATTOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-2014.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 1987.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and A.N. Radabaugh, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

*38Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Coral Mattos, appeals that portion of an order placing her on probation which imposes certain costs against her. After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we agree the trial court erred in assessing these costs.

After adjudging the appellant insolvent, the trial court assessed costs against her pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981). Since the appellant was adjudged insolvent but was not given adequate notice of the assessment, we hereby strike those costs. *Jenkins v.*State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). This decision is without prejudice to the trial court assessing those costs against the appellant in accordance with the requirements of *Jenkins.*

We also find error in the imposition of $200 additional court costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). The information charged that the appellant’s crime of welfare fraud, a violation of section 409.325, Florida Statutes (1981), occurred between February 3,1982, and April 30, 1982. Section 27.3455 became effective July 1, 1985. We, therefore, hold that the trial court’s imposition of court costs pursuant to this section violated constitutional ex post facto restrictions. *See*U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3 and § 10, cl. 1; Fla. Const. art. I, § 10; *Bowman v. State,*495 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); *see also, Yost v. State,*489 So.2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

We, accordingly, strike that portion of the order imposing $200 court costs against the appellant pursuant to section 27.3455 and certify the same question to the supreme court that we certified in *Bowman.*

We find no merit in the appellant’s other contentions and, therefore, affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

SCHOONOVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

RYDER, A.C.J., concurs specially with opinion.

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur with the result of this panel, but incorporate by reference my specially concurring opinion in *Stone v. State,*500 So.2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), as to the *ex post facto*argument concerning section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985).
|   | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:   | /s/ Andrew  Berman        |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------|
|            |                                |
|            | Andrew  Berman            |
|            | Chief  Executive Officer  |
|            |  (Principal Executive Officer) |

----
50387, 50388.

#### ROGERS v. GRIGGS; and vice versa.

Argued February 26, 1975

Decided April 8, 1975.

*Frank Sutton,*for appellant.

*Douglas W. McDonald,*for appellee.

Stolz, Judge.

In this action the plaintiff alleges the defendant’s breach of their partnership agreement, alleges that he "is without adequate remedy at law,” and prays for (1) a decree dissolving the partnership, (2) an accounting of the partnership assets and profits, (3) unliquidated contractual damages in the amount of one half of the partnership’s assets and profits, and (4) the temporary and permanent injunction of the collection of a judgment.. The action seeks equitable relief, which this court has no jurisdiction to grant. See Code §§ 75-107 and 37-301. Accordingly, the appeal and the cross appeal are transferred to the Supreme Court.

*Transferred to the Supreme Court.*

*Deen, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.*
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
 
General Scanning GmbH
  Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Germany
 
General Scanning Asia Pacific Limited
  Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Hong Kong
 
General Scanning Japan K.K.
  Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Japan
 
GSI Export Corporation
  Jurisdiction of Incorporation: U.S. Virgin Islands
 
General Scanning France SARL
  Jurisdiction of Incorporation: France
 
General Scanning Limited
  Jurisdiction of Incorporation: United Kingdom
 
General Scanning Securities Corporation
  Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Massachusetts, United States
 
View Engineering, Inc.
  Jurisdiction of Incorporation: California, United States