alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-10124

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cv-62141-BB; 0:04-cr-60046-JAG-1

RAYMOND GEORGE BOHNING, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 2, 2019)

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-10124 Date Filed: 04/02/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Raymond Bohning, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate based on lack of 

jurisdiction. On appeal, he reiterates his argument from the § 2255 motion—that 

Amendment 801 to the Sentencing Guidelines added a knowledge requirement to 

sentencing enhancements for distribution of child pornography, and the 

amendment should be applied retroactively to reduce his sentence because he did 

not possess the requisite knowledge.1

We conduct a de novo review of a district court’s dismissal of a § 2255 

motion as second or successive. McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327, 1329 

(11th Cir. 2002). We review a district court’s denial of a motion for 

reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 

1216 (11th Cir. 2003). 

A federal prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive motion to 

vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is required to move the court of appeals for an 

order authorizing the district court to consider such a motion. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(h). Without such authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to 

 1 Bohning also argues, for the first time on appeal, that his § 2255 motion should instead

be construed as an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. Even if we assume that this argument is 

properly before us, Bohning is not entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) 

allows relief only in accordance with the policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. And 

the Commission’s policy statement, which is codified at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, allows for sentence 

reductions based only on amendments to the guidelines that are specifically listed in § 1B1.10(d). 

Because Amendment 801 is not listed there, Bohning is not entitled to relief. 

Case: 18-10124 Date Filed: 04/02/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

consider a second or successive § 2255 motion to vacate. United States v. Holt, 

417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005).

Here, the record shows that Bohning had filed a previous § 2255 motion that 

was denied on the merits and failed to first seek or receive our permission to file 

the instant, second § 2255 motion. Thus, the district court properly dismissed the 

motion for lack of jurisdiction. For the same reasons, we also cannot say that the 

district court abused its discretion in denying Bohning’s motion for 

reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-10124 Date Filed: 04/02/2019 Page: 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERNEST WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 558 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of April, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 31.1








RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) CERTIFICATION (SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)











I, Andrew J. McMonigle, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2021-3 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.








Date: May 26, 2023








/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Name: Andrew J. McMonigle


Title: Vice President and Treasurer


(Senior officer in charge of securitization)


Company: CarMax Auto Funding LLC


as Depositor on behalf of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2021-3
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135366 & (60)(61) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MICHIGAN ex rel THE MUSKEGON Stephen J. Markman, COUNTY PROSECUTOR, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 135366 COA: 281321 Muskegon CC: 07-045526-AW MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and WAYNE LEE STEVENS, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the N ovember 29, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED.

M ARKMAN , J., concurs and states as follows:

The prosecutor, in my judgment, ra ises reasonable questions concerning (a) whether the Department of Correcti on’s “immediate usage” method of computing good-time and special good-tim e credits is in better accord with MCL 800.33 than the “earn as you serve” method identified by the prosecutor, and (b) whether an inmate’s escape sentence properly begins before the in mate’s murder sentence has reached its statutory maximum or before the parole board has expre ssly terminated the murder sentence. However, in light of the fact that the department’s current policies and practices have been employed for more than a half century, and in light of the reliance
interests that have arisen in connection with these policies and practices, I believe that further relief must come from the legislative or executive branches of government. See People v Lively , 470 Mich 248, 259 (2004) (M arkman, J., concurring).

t0205 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 8, 2008

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1510

POOPAK TA’ATI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY

COLLEGE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03-

2097-RWT; CA-04-3799-RWT)

Submitted: March 3, 2006 Decided: March 20, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Poopak Ta’ati, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Veronica Burrell, Joann

Robertson, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Poopak Ta’ati appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to the Defendant on her employment discrimination

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court in the bench hearing of April 18, 2005. See

Ta’ati v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery Community College, Nos.

CA-03-2097-RWT; CA-04-3799-RWT (D. Md. Apr. 18, 2005). 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
REVISED

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 95-30926.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in its Corporate Capacity,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Gerald C. BARTON; Gerald G. Rothman; William W. Vaughan; Peter

R. Kirwin-Taylor; Gilbert I. Newman; Jack G. Golsen; Norman L.

Peck; Bernard Ille; Albert Reichmann; Joe W. Walser, Jr.; and

Joseph V. Olree, Defendants-Appellees.

Jan. 16, 1997.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Louisiana; Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION OF REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion Sept. 26, 1996, 5th Cir.1996, 96 F.3d 128)

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this

panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having

requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc (FRAP and

Local Rule 35), the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is also

DENIED.

We write further because of the FDIC's suggestion that our

opinion conflicts with an earlier opinion, Louisiana World

Exposition v. Federal Ins. Co., 858 F.2d 233 (5th Cir.1988). While

we did not discuss or cite this case in our opinion, we did take it

into consideration. Contrary to the FDIC's protestations, it is

not dispositive of the issues in this case. We found it
unpersuasive for several reasons.

The language in Louisiana World to which the FDIC makes

reference is dicta. The opinion discussed the question of whether

any one of the claims alleged by the plaintiff was sufficient to

state cause of action. In addition to a claim for breach of

fiduciary duty, there were claims for gross negligence and for

mismanagement. These claims were always discussed as one and not

apart from each other; the panel was not asked to define the

differences between them. This was because a finding on one would

be enough for the suit to go forward. In our opinion in this case,

however, we undertook a specific examination of the elements of a

cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under Louisiana law.

Our opinion properly applied the relevant case law from our

court on this point of Louisiana law. As the opinions in Gerdes v.

Estate of Cush, 953 F.2d 201 (5th Cir.1992), and FDIC v. Duffy, 47

F.3d 146 (5th Cir.1995), show, an allegation of gross negligence is

insufficient to make out a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

Because the FDIC did not allege fraud, self-dealing, or other

conduct beyond gross negligence in its complaint, it did not make

out a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, the

one-year prescriptive period applied. Moreover, the opinion in

Louisiana World had nothing at all to do with the critical question

of this case, the proper period of prescription for a claim

asserting gross negligence.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Danny Rivera, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Bahaati E. Pitt, J.) rendered September 17, 2018, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree and driving while impaired by alcohol, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Bahaati E. Pitt, J.) rendered September 17, 2018, affirmed.</p><p>Our review of the record indicates that defendant's guilty plea to the charges of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (<i>see </i>Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 511[1][a]) and driving while impaired by alcohol (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1192[1]), in exchange for a promised sentence of a conditional discharge, was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently with the aid of counsel, and after the court sufficiently advised defendant of the constitutional rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty (<a href="../2015/2015_08615.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375</a> [2015]; <a href="../2015/2015_08617.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Sougou</i>, 26 NY3d 1052</a> [2015]). Defendant also executed a form acknowledging receipt of a written copy of the terms of the conditional discharge and its expiration date (<i>see </i>CPL 410.10[1]; <a href="../2020/2020_50044.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Valentin</i>, 66 Misc 3d 136</a>[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50044[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2020]) and his contention that the plea was invalid because he was not informed of the length of the conditional discharge is unavailing (<a href="../2013/2013_02786.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Kidd</i>, 105 AD3d 1267</a> [2013], <i>lv denied </i>21 NY3d 1005 [2013]; <i>People v Kripanidhi</i>, 59 Misc 3d 148[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50789[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018]), <i>lv denied </i>32 NY3d 938 [2018]).</p><p>In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by reinstating the charges (<a href="../2014/2014_51891.htm" target="_blank"><i>see e.g., People v Murray</i>, 46 Misc 3d 136</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51891[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]; <i>see also People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d at 385 n 1), dismissal is not warranted and we therefore affirm.</p><p>All concur.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><p>Clerk of the Court</p><br>Decision Date: June 18, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blackhawk Capital Group
      BDC, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig
      A. Zabala, as acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereto certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities 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.





Date:   November
      12, 2008





/s/
                Craig A. ZabalaCraig
                A. ZabalaActing
                Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Blackhawk Capital Group BDC Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 7

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative postage stamp

should be issued in honor of the late George Thomas ‘‘Mickey’’ Leland.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas submitted the following concurrent resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative

postage stamp should be issued in honor of the late

George Thomas ‘‘Mickey’’ Leland.

Whereas George Thomas Leland (affectionately known as

‘‘Mickey’’), in the course of his 6 terms as a member of

the House of Representatives from the State of Texas,

emerged as a national spokesman regarding the problem

of hunger in the United States and throughout the world;

Whereas Mickey Leland was instrumental in establishing the

Select Committee on Hunger and served as chairman of

that committee until the time of his death;

Whereas, in the capacity of chairman of the Select Committee

on Hunger, Mickey Leland helped generate public awareness of the complex issues relating to the alleviation of
2

•HCON 7 IH

hunger and demonstrated strong personal moral leadership;

Whereas it was his leadership that guided the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, which required the Secretary of Agriculture not only to distribute surplus food, but also to

purchase additional food for future distributions to needy

households;

Whereas Mickey Leland brought together entertainment personalities, religious leaders, and private volunteer agencies to generate public support for the African Famine

Relief and Recovery Act of 1985, which provided

$800,000,000 in food and humanitarian relief supplies;

Whereas the various initiatives brought forth by Mickey Leland to eradicate world hunger undoubtedly saved thousands of lives;

Whereas 1999 marked the 10th anniversary of Mickey Leland’s death;

Whereas Mickey Leland died as he lived: on a mission to

make a positive difference in this world; and

Whereas commemorative postage stamps have been commissioned to honor other great leaders in American history:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) a commemorative postage stamp should be

4 issued in honor of George Thomas ‘‘Mickey’’ Leland;

5 and

6 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee of

7 the United States Postal Service should recommend
3

•HCON 7 IH

1 to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be

2 issued.

Æ
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority



## 7000 Series Rail Car

Accessibility Features

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car

 More (25%) bars/handholds at door and through

train than 6000 series car

 Vertical poles at each seat to help people stand up

- seat backs also have handholds/bars)

 Privacy screen at priority seating

 4 priority seats for people with disabilities and seniors

 2 designated wheelchair parking areas at middle door

with U shaped grab bar including specially colored

flooring

## 7000 Series Car

 Increased aisle width from 32" to 34" to

accommodate wheelchair users

 Emergency call buttons at both ends and center of

car

 Two ceiling mounted displays providing line, station

and destination information

 Four wall mounted displays providing line, station

and destination information Automated station announcements

 Retained priority seating signage consistent with

other car series

 Retained platform to car floor gap reducers

 Wording of all destination signs will be of the same

color; the bars at the side of the wording will

indicate line color

 Improvements to car PA system 

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car

 Removed floor to ceiling stanchions at doors

consistent with 6000 series car

 Vinyl seat covers

 Non

- slip vinyl floors

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car
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 Lincoln Park Bancorp (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), David G. Baker, President and Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, and Nandini S. Mallya, Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection
      with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB, that I have reviewed the Form 10-QSB
      and 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 result of operations of the Company.













/s/
                David G. Baker
              David
                G. Baker
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
              (Chief
                Executive Officer)
              
              
              /s/
                Nandini S. Mallya
              Nandini
                S. Mallya
              Vice
                President and Treasurer
              (Chief
                Financial Officer)







May
      11, 2007
SERVED: DECEMBER8, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION· OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF

GENE HARRISON ·DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0860 (Civil Penalty Action) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

### fb

This proceeding (heretofore designated as CaseNo. 2013EA700064) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communicationsregarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAAHearing

Attachment
- Service ListSERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Gene Harrison, Respondent 3705 Arctic Blvd. Apt. 543 Anchorage, AK 99503 TEL: 907-727-4719 Jeanine Gotimer, Complainant's Counsel Federal AviationAdministration ONE COPY

Office ofRegional Counsel, Eastern Region 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3272 FAX: 718-995-5699 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0860 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk;AGC-430. 2