alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. CASE NO. 5:22-CR-64-H-BQ-1 

JOHN MICHAEL CARRASCO 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count One of the Superseding Information, charging defendant with a 

violation of 18 U.S. C. §§ 922(g)(l), 924(a)(2), that is, Convicted Felon in Possession of a 

Firearm. After examining Defendant under oath the undersigned magistrate judge finds 

the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

Case 5:22-cr-00064-H-BQ Document 27 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 47
2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen (14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed December 19, 2022. 

Case 5:22-cr-00064-H-BQ Document 27 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 48
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7474** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CARLOS CONJO

- BERERA , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:06

- cr - 00057

- RLV

- DCK

- 2 ; 5:10

- cv - 00189

- RLV )

Submitted : February 24, 2014 Decided: March 4 , 2014

Before KING, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Matthew Gridley Pruden , TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC , Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Steven R. Kaufman , Thomas A. O’ Malley, Amy Elizabeth Ray , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STA TES ATTORNEY , Asheville , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Carlos Conjo

- Berera seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) . When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatabl e, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Conjo

- Berera has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 11

                       CCF HOLDING COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
                        Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Three Months Ended  Three Months Ended
                                                  March 31, 1998       March 31, 1997
                                                  --------------       --------------
<S>                                                <C>                 <C>       
Basic Net income per share:

   Common stock - shares outstanding as of
      December 31, 1997 and 1996                      899,024           1,002,795
                                                                     
   Unallocated ESOP shares                            (59,400)            (67,230)
                                                   ----------          ----------
                                                                     
    Common stock - shares outstanding                 839,624             935,475
                                                                     
    Weighted average ESOP shares - committed            1,320                 660
                                                                     
    Weighted average shares repurchased                  --               (39,955)
                                                   ----------          ----------
                                                                     
    Weighted average shares outstanding               840,944             896,180
                                                                     
    Basic Net income per share                     $      .07          $      .03
                                                   ----------          ----------
                                                                     
                                                                     
Diluted Net income per share:                                        
                                                                     
   Weighted average shares outstanding                840,944             896,180
                                                                     
   Effect of dilutive options                          81,962              69,940
                                                   ----------          ----------
                                                                     
   Weighted average shares outstanding - diluted      922,906             966,120
                                                   ----------          ----------
                                                                     
   Diluted net income per share                    $      .06          $      .03
                                                   ----------          ----------
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                        724,951
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              142,350
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        920,747
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          921,376
<LOANS>                                    20,308,415
<ALLOWANCE>                                   351,426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             26,980,705
<DEPOSITS>                                 24,474,561
<SHORT-TERM>                                  450,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            17,567
<LONG-TERM>                                     9,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,069
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,836,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             26,980,705
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               497,959
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              24,232
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                5,820
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              528,011
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            309,003
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            315,355
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         212,656
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   1,032 
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               292,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,781)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,781)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   5.26
<LOANS-NON>                                   521,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                1,336,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               53,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                               337,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              368,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 (18,000)
<RECOVERIES>                                    2,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             352,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 12 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 13
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 12 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 14
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 12 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 15
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-51036 (Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EARL OSCAR FORESTER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(A-95-CR-154-1)

- - - - - - - - - - October 26, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This appeal is ordered SEVERED from appeal No. 97-51035, United States v . Franklin Rollin Johnston, also known as Johnny Johnston, which is continued for further proceedings on appeal. Defendant-Appellant Earl Oscar Forester appeals his jury conviction for the possession and uttering of counterfeit securities in vio lation of 18 U.S.C. § 513. Our review of the record, the arguments of counsel, and applicable authorities2

convin ces us that no reversible error was committed. The indictment was not defective. S ee United States v. Fitzgerald , 89 F.3d 218, 221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 446 (1996). The evidence was not insufficient. See United States v. Fox , 69 F.3d 15, 19 (5 th Cir. 1995). And, as there is no showing that he has exhausted hi s administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons, Forester’s request for credit for time already served is premature, se e United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 333-34 (1992); accordingly, we express no opinion as to the merit of this final issue. Johnston’ s and Forester’s appeals are ordered severed, and Forester’s conviction is affirmed. APPEALS SEVERED; NO. 97-51036 AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BETHEL APOSTOLIC MINISTRIES '

and WILLIAM L. NKEA, '

Plaintiffs, '

' Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-2265-E-BH

v. '

'

CAPITAL FUND I, LLC, '

Defendant. '

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case—including the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge—and in accordance 

with 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Court.1 

Defendant Capital Fund I, LLC=s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 14, 2022 

(doc. 8), is GRANTED. By separate judgment, the plaintiffs= claims against the defendant will 

be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

SIGNED this 6th day of September, 2023.

1 No objections were filed.

Case 3:22-cv-02265-E-BH Document 26 Filed 09/06/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 287
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7852** 

LARNELL HENDRICK , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; FRANK B. BISHOP, NBCI Warden, In their individual and Official Capacities; LIEUTENANT SAWYERS, In their individual and Official Capacities; SERGEANT G. FORNEY, In their individual and Official Capacities; CO II SOLTAS, In their individual and Official Capacities; CO II ANDERSON, In their individual and Official Capacities; BILL BEEMAN, NBCI Medical Director, In their individual and Official Capacities , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 8:14

- cv - 02544

- TDC )

Submitted : April 13, 2015 Decided: April 15, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part ; dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Larnell Hendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Larnell Hendrick seeks to appeal the district court’s order: denying his motions for preliminary injunction and for appointment of counsel; and granting his motions to correct the record and to amend the complaint in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. We review the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. WV Ass’n of C lub Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave , 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hendrick failed to make the showing required for issuance of a preliminary injunction. Se e Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). We therefore affirm the portion of the district court’s order denying the requested injunction for the reasons stated by the district court. Hendrick v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. , No. 8:14

- cv - 02544

- TDC (D. Md. Nov. 21, 2014). With respect to the remainder of the district court’s order, this court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The non

- dispositive orders denying the motion for appointment of counsel and granting the motions to amend the4 complaint and to correct the record are neit her final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. 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 IN PART ; DISMISSED IN PART
Case 4:22-cr-00277-O Document 27 Filed 10/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 75
Case 4:22-cr-00277-O Document 27 Filed 10/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 76
#### JORDAN v. STATE.

No. 21203.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 6, 1940.

Otto Mullinax, of Winnsboro, J. E. Brown, of Brady, (on appeal), for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of three years.

Upon an inspection of the record, we find an .indefinite verdict and the court, in pronouncing sentence upon appellant, failed to make application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 775, due perhaps to the uncertainty of the jury’s verdict.

Appellant was charged with the offense of an assault to murder with malice. The court instructed the jury as to the law on an assault to murder with and without, malice, and also on the law of aggravated assault. The jury returned into court the following verdict:

> “We the Jury find the defendant guilty and assess his penalty at three years in the penitentiary.

> “A. H. Calvert, Foreman.”

Looking to the verdict as written, it is impossible to tell whether they found him guilty of assault with intent to murder with or without malice. The punishment prescribed by law for an assault with intent to murder with malice is by confinement in the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than fifteen years, while the punishment for assault with intent to murder without malice is by confinement in the state penitentiary for not less than one nor more than three years.

The difficult question arising from such an indefinite verdict, in cases of this nature, is the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Under the circumstances of this case and the provisions of the law mentioned above due to the imperfect verdict, the trial court was in no position to give effect to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and neither is this court in a position to do so because we do piot know of what grade the jury convicted the accused. In the absence of a determination of that issue by the jury, this court will not be authorized to arbitrarily reform the sentence so as to comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. See Johnson v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 82, 128 S.W.2d 384.

In view of the disppsition we are making of this case, we do not deem it necessary to discuss any of the other questions presented as they may not arise again upon another trial.

From what we have said, it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be re*275versed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40585 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL JOSEPH DERROW Plaintiff-Appellant

v. UNIDENTIFIED UNIDENTIFIED, U.S. District Clerk; JOHN DOE, Numbered One Through Ten, All Individually and Under the Capacity of Employment; UNITED STATES DISTRICT CLERK; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENE RAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS; RICH ARD BRAZZIL; US MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEITH F GIBLINDefendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:06-CV-137
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Joseph Derrow, federal prisoner # 03199-286, moves this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his civil lawsuit against several federal officials involved in the prosecution of United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 13, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40585

2 Derrow’scriminal conviction. The district court dismissed Derrow’s suit because it was barred by the principles ofresjudicata; it was an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and it was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court also denied Derrow’s request to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that theappeal was not taken in good faith. Derrow’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Derrow does not address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his lawsuit. Because he fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, the argument is abandoned. See Brinkmann v. DallasCounty Deputy SheriffAbner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Derrow has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. The dismissal ofDerrow’s lawsuit by the district court as frivolous and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). SeeAdepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Derrow is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g). IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Case 2:22-cr-00072-Z-BR Document 44 Filed 02/21/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 117
Case 3:22-cv-02430-S-BN Document 14 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 32
Case 3:22-cv-02430-S-BN Document 14 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 33
Case 1:22-cr-00069-H-BU Document 25 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 43
Case 1:22-cr-00069-H-BU Document 25 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 44