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

Pickering 

Yocum has not alleged that the district court relied solely on impalpable or 

highly suspect evidence or that the sentencing statute is unconstitutional, 

see Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 347-48, 213 P.3d 476, 489-90 (2009), and 

fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion at 

sentencing. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 1 

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge 

Calvert & Hubach, LLC 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

'Although we filed the fast track statement submitted by Yocum, it 

fails to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure because it is 

not entirely double-spaced, see NRAP 32(a)(4), and the statement of facts 

section refers to matters in the record without specific citation to the 

appendix, see NRAP 3C(e)(1)(C). Counsel for Yocum is cautioned that the 

failure to comply with this court's briefing requirements may result in the 

imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(C) 1.947A
**EXHIBIT 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     The Board of Directors    Belk, Inc.:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statement    (No. 333-103762)    on    Form S-8    of Belk, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated    April 17, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance    sheets of Belk, Inc. and subsidiaries as of February 2,    2008 and February 3, 2007, and the related consolidated    statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity and    comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in    the three-year period ended February 2, 2008 and the    effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of    February 2, 2008, which reports appear in the    February 2, 2008 Annual Report on    Form 10-K    of Belk, Inc.     Our report refers to the adoption of the provisions of Financial    Accounting Standards Board’s Interpretation No. 48,    “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes,” as of    February 4, 2007. Our report also refers to the adoption of    the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards    Board’s Statement of Financial Accounting Standards    No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined    Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans” as of    February 3, 2007.     KPMG LLP     Charlotte, North Carolina    April 17, 2008
#### Francesco GALESI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America and Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 18, Docket 76-6055.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 27, 1976.

Decided Oct. 28, 1976.

Carleton D. Powell, Atty., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen.; Gilbert E. Andrews and Crombie J. D. Garrett, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., and George W. F. Cook, U. S. Atty., Rutland, Vt. on the brief), for defendants-appellants.

R. Marshall Witten, Bennington, Vt. (Witten & Carter, Bennington, Vt.), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WATERMAN, VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges, and MOTLEY,* District Judge.

*

 Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment below is affirmed on the opinion of Chief Judge Holden below.

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge

(dissenting):

The issues in this action are quite simple. In a Vermont “strict” foreclosure action seeking solely to cut off the mortgagor’s equity of redemption, does the judgment of foreclosure discharge a federal tax lien filed after the commencement of the action but prior to the judgment if the federal government has not been made a party.

26 U.S.C. § 7425(a), read in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a), provides in substance that if the United States is not joined as a party in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, a judgment in such action or a judicial sale pursuant to such judgment shall be subject to a tax lien of the United States if notice of such lien was filed prior to the commencement of the action and shall have the same effect with respect to the discharge of an unfiled tax lien as it would with respect to other unfiled liens under local law. § 2410(c) provides that “[a]n action to foreclose a mortgage or other lien, naming the United States as a party under this section, must *607seek judicial sale.” The purpose of this section was to lift the bar of sovereign immunity, *United States v. Brosnan,*363 U.S. 237, 246, 80 S.Ct. 1108, 4 L.Ed.2d 1192 (1960), and it should therefore be strictly construed. *Haggard v. Lancaster,*320 F.Supp. 1252, 1254 (N.D. Miss.1970).

Because §§ 7425 and 2410 are interrelated, I therefore construe the provisions of § 7425(a) to apply only to a mortgage foreclosure action looking toward the judicial sale of the mortgaged property. Support for this construction is found in the final paragraph of subsection (a) which provides that if a judicial sale is held in an action in which the government’s lien has been discharged, the lien will attach to the proceeds of the sale.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
#### Ex parte JONES.

No. 24911.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 7, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty, of Austin, for the State.

■ WOODLEY, Judge.

Relator filed his application for habeas corpus before District Judge Max M. Rogers, alleging that he was illegally incarcerated in the state penitentiary.

Upon a hearing before Judge Rogers, it was shown that Relator was received by the penitentiary authorities under conviction in Cause No. 2881, in the District Court of Karnes County, Texas, the sentence being for not less than two nor more than five years. It was further shown that-Relator has credit for 3 years, 2 months and 26 days on such sentence for time served and earned in the penitentiary.

The copy of the judgment entered in said Cause No. 2881' offered in evidence shows that Relator waived a jury, and entered a plea of guilty. It further shows the punishment assessed by the court to be for “not less than 2 years nor more than 5 years.”

It is upon such indefinite and uncertain punishment that Relator bases his contention that the judgment is void and his confinement therefore illegal. He cites and relies upon Ex parte East, Tex.Cr.App., 225 S.W.2d 833; Ex parte Traxler, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 661, 184 S.W.2d 286; and Edwards v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 219 S.W.2d 1022.

After the hearing, Judge Rogers granted the writ and ordered that it be made returnable 'before this court, as provided by Art. 119, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

In addition to the findings of Judge Rogers, it has now been made to appear by certified copy from the minutes of the District Court of Karnes County, Texas, that the judgment as entered in said Cause No. 2881 has been corrected by entry nunc pro tunc of the judgment actually rendered by the judge at the trial.

The minutes now show that the punishment assessed by the trial judge was for a term of five years.

The judgment actually pronounced on the' trial and now shown: in the records is not subject to the attack made, and Relator appears to be lawfully restrained under such conviction. . ,

The relief prayed for is therefore denied.

.Opinion-approved by the Court.' '
#### WYNN v. STATE.

No. 25365.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 27, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of alcoholic beverages 'for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $500.00.

We have reviewed the record and find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

There are no bills of exception.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 5 0242 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

MANUEL CARRASCO

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:12

- CR

- 31

- 1

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Manuel Carrasco has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Carrasco h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s bri ef and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 17, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50242 Document: 00512473875 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013No. 13

- 5 0242

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-50242 Document: 00512473875 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
In The Matter Of: 

CLELIA AYALA 

Respondent 

SERVED: SEPTEMBER 18,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASI-ITNGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0910 

Case No. 2010S0290061 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On June 3, 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration Regional Counsel ("FAA") filed a 

one-page Notice of Settlement, with an attached two-page Promissory Note, stating that the 

parties had reached a settlement. As part of the Settlement, the pro se Respondent, Ms. Clelia 

Ayala, had agreed to withdraw her appeal and agreed that the case could be dismissed with 

prejudice. 

However, that same day (June 3, 2013) the Respondent raised a separate motion. 

Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, action on the Settlement Notice was reserved pending 

argument and decision on the Respondent's motion. 

On August 28,2013 an Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Withhold or Redact 

Information from the Record was filed. As of today' s date, neither party has requested 

interlocutory review of the August 28, 2013 Order. 

After reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, 

pleadings, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1) Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §13.215, the prose Respondent, Ms. Clelia Ayala, has 

withdrawn her Request for Hearing because the parties have settled the dispute, and 

this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 
f 

SERVICE 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 2Wl 0001 

Mr. William P. Vines, Esq. 

Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Ms. Clelia Ayala 

Respondent 

11175 Georgia Avenue, Apt. 603 

Wheaton, MD 20.902 

TEL: 305-588-9397 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0910 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing 

Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

_j
SERVED: June 17,2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION· OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF BALD MOUNTAIN AIRSERVICE, INC. FAADOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0289

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013WA910046) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Attaclunent

- Ser\rice List Ronni A. Yoder

## Jud~ ChiefAdministrative Law 

# l--.---'/SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL



### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ORIGINAL & ONE COPY



### Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 · Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W10001 ONE COPY 

### Michael F. McKinley, 

### Complainant's Counsel Senior Attorney, Office ofthe ChiefCounsel, AGC-300 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: 202-267-7100 FAX: 202-267-5106 Gary D. Porter, Vice President Bald Mountain Air Service, Inc., 

### Respondent P.O. Box 3134 Homer, AK 99603 TEL: 907-235-7969 FAX: 907-235-6602 Hon. 

### J.E. Sullivan,

### Administrative LaWJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0289 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson or by expedited courier, use the following address: ·Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; AGC-430. ·**~·,...** . 

### -2-
From: "Adelberg, Kimberly Malm" <KMADELBE@southernco.com>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/02/2012 12:31 PM

Subject: RE: Materials

Bob,

These are the handouts we shared with OMB. I am not sending the Guidance since 

it is such a large document and you already have that.

Lisa Jackson quote on CCS: "It can be years, maybe a decade or more, until we 

have the technology available at commercial scale" 

From Reuters article, "U.S. EPA to propose utility carbon rules next year" Nov. 

17, 2011

Source: 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/usa-epa-carbon-idUSN1E7AG0WU2011111

7

Kimberly Malm Adelberg

Climate Strategy Manager

Southern Company Research and Environmental Affairs

205.257.5526 Office

205.903.7053 Cell

-----Original Message-----

From: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 1:24 PM

To: Adelberg, Kimberly Malm

Subject: Re: Materials

Thank you!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D.

Leader, Energy Strategies Group

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Mail Code D243-01

RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-1045

Cell: (919) 306-2290

Fax: (919) 541-5450

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

*********************************************************

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

*********************************************************

From: "Adelberg, Kimberly Malm" <KMADELBE@southernco.com>
To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/01/2012 02:21 PM

Subject: Materials

Bob,

I did not have time to send materials, I am so sorry. I will send

materials asap. A couple things you have that we will reference: BACT

Guidance, Response to Comments on recent NSPS and Southern's comments

on the planned GHG rulemaking.

Kimberly Malm Adelberg

Climate Strategy Manager

Southern Company Research & Environmental Affairs

205.257.5526 office

205.903.7053 cell

Sent from my iPhone

Southern Company EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0090.pdf

 

NETL Project Fact Sheet.pdf 

CCS handouts.pdf 

Sample of EPA NSR Lawsuits and Targeted Projects.pdf 

EPA's background on NSPS.pdf 

OMB Project Schedule.pdf 

EPA response to NSPS comments.PDF 

Jackson Reuters Thu Nov 17.pdf
1 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. 97-31188

Summary Calendar

 

PAUL GARDEN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-399

- - - - - - - - - -

April 28, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Paul Garden appeals the district court’s order dismissing for

lack of jurisdiction his petition for review of the BIA’s decision

dismissing his appeal of his deportation order. Garden argues

that his petition was a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 federal habeas petition

over which the district court had jurisdiction. Because Garden’s

petition sought review of the BIA’s decision and a stay of the

deportation order, the district court did not err in dismissing the

petition for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. Garden’s

motion for extraordinary relief is DENIED.
No. 

-2-

AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF DENIED.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY

As of December 31, 2009, ServiceMaster had the following subsidiaries:

Subsidiary

State or Country
of Incorporation
or Organization667217 Ontario Limited

CanadaAmerican Home Shield Corporation

DelawareAmerican Home Shield of Arizona, Inc.

ArizonaAmerican Home Shield of California, Inc.

CaliforniaAmerican Home Shield of Florida, Inc.

FloridaAmerican Home Shield of Iowa, Inc.

IowaAmerican Home Shield of Maine, Inc.

MaineAmerican Home Shield of Oklahoma, Inc.

OklahomaAmerican Home Shield of Texas, Inc.

TexasAmerican Home Shield of Virginia, Inc.

VirginiaAmerican Home Shield of Washington, Inc.

WashingtonAmerican Residential Services Holding L.L.C.

DelawareAmeriSpec, Inc.

DelawareCertified Systems, Inc.

TexasD. R. Church Landscape Co., Inc.

IllinoisFM Medic LLC

DelawareFurniture Medic Limited Partnership

DelawareGreenLawn, Ltd.

CanadaHome Shield Insurance Agency, Inc.

CaliforniaMerry Maids Limited Partnership

DelawareMinnesota Lawn Maintenance, Inc.

MinnesotaMM Maids L.L.C.

DelawareNew Jersey Home Shield Corporation

New JerseyPersonal Profesional de Pesticidas, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoPetgar Holdings, Inc.

CanadaSchumacher Landscaping, Inc.

MassachusettsServiceMaster Acceptance Corporation

DelawareServiceMaster Brands L.L.C.

VermontServiceMaster Brands Management L.L.C.

DelawareServiceMaster BSC L.L.C.

DelawareServiceMaster Consumer Services, Inc.

DelawareServiceMaster Consumer Services Limited Partnership

DelawareServiceMaster Employer Services, Inc.

DelawareServiceMaster Funding Company LLC

DelawareServiceMaster Gift L.L.C.

FloridaServiceMaster Holding Corporation

DelawareServiceMaster International Holdings, Inc.

DelawareServiceMaster Limited

EnglandServiceMaster Management Corporation

DelawareServiceMaster of Canada Limited

CanadaServiceMaster Pacific Rim Expansion LLC

DelawareServiceMaster Receivables Company LLC

DelawareServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership

DelawareServiceMaster Services Limited

United KingdomServicios de Plagas Terminix, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoSiteService L.L.C.

Delaware


---



Subsidiary

State or Country
of Incorporation
or OrganizationSM Clean L.L.C.

DelawareSteward Insurance Company

VermontTerminix International, Inc.

DelawareTerminix International, S.A.

MexicoThe ServiceMaster Acceptance Company Limited Partnership

DelawareThe ServiceMaster Foundation

IllinoisThe Terminix International Company Limited Partnership

DelawareTruGreen Companies L.L.C.

DelawareTruGreen Home Landscape Services, L.L.C.

DelawareTruGreen LandCare, a California general partnership

CaliforniaTruGreen LandCare L.L.C.

DelawareTruGreen LandCare of Alabama L.L.C.

DelawareTruGreen LandCare of Nevada L.L.C.

DelawareTruGreen Limited Partnership

DelawareTruGreen, Inc.

DelawareTSI Staffing, Inc.

Texas


---



QuickLinks
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6142

JAMES PITTS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DOLPH DRUCKMAN; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paul W. Grimm , District Judge. ( 8:17

- cv
- 03456

- PWG )

Submitted : June 20, 2019 Decided: June 24, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James Pitt, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Pitts appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district c ourt. Pitts v. Druckman , No. 8:17

- cv
- 03456

- PWG (D. Md. Jan. 4, 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AF FIRMED
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington DC 20590

Re – Amended FAA Exemption Amendments for #11335.

To whom it may concern, there have been no changes in conditions or reasons relative to public interest and 

safety that were the basis for our original exemption approval. Please let me know if you need anything else.

Best Regards,

Marc Asselin

President Voler UAV

561 676-3917

info@VolerUAV.com
#### WAGNER v. STATE.

No. 23132.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1945.

Ross Bohannon, of Brownwood, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in dry area. Punishment, fine of $100.

*577No statement of facts or bills of exception are brought forward. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.