alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6127

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JIMMY EUGENE PARKER, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder , Chief District Judge. ( 1:05

- cr
- 00158

- TDS

- 1; 1:16

- cv
- 00493

- TDS

- JEP )

Submitted : April 17, 2018 Decided: April 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jimmy Eugene Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy Eugene Parker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district cou rt’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its offic er or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 3 , 201 7 . The notice of appeal was filed on January 30, 2018

. * Because Parker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Parker’s motion for a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been prope rly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
4

-IP-SECRETWIIIIMPU21/

--('S) NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.0

THE NRO STAFF

June 29, 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with Mr. Byers

While in the EOB on June 26 I stopped by and saw

Wheaton Byers. I learned that Mr. Byers is the new

Iiillk

Executive Secrete o the PFIAB and that Gerry Burke

has moved back t Wheaton informed me that although

the PFIAB has no een officially reconstituted an

announcement is expected soon. Adm. Anderson will continue

as Chairman and four members will be added to replace four

who are departing. In our brief conversation Byers inferred

that they had held discussions with Secretary Clements and

that Secretary Clements had indicated that he desires to be

a principal on the ExCom. Byers was also aware that Dr.

Hall had been the DOD member at the last ExCom. We also

discussed briefly the decompartmentation issue. I stated

that if normal classification rules were effective the

decompartmentation scheme likely would work but that we

were apprenhensive that a decision would be made to implement

without sufficient planning.

Byers asked me if our management was being incumbered

by outside influences. I replied by saying that we were

experiencing some difficulty. He requested that our annual

report contain strong references to our problems and some

recommendations for their alleviation. I agreed that we

would draft some reasonably strong paragraphs but that

these may not prove to be appropriate for submitting to

the PFIAB.

HAROLD S. COYLE, JR.

Major, USAF

cif

!m• cum/AMID ow ., igmE=FROIN

OINONAL OWL LE OP INICRIVZ ONONN ON CAT[ 1112 OiCLASOPT ON NOP OCT

CON TROL NOautexual

COP Y Oi COPIES

PAGE,L OF PAGES
SCWC-16-0000345

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

 

STATE OF HAWAI I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MAXWELL F. JONES,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-16-0000345; CASE NO. 1DTA-15-03477)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Maxwell F. Jones’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on September 13, 2019,

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, November 6, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-16-0000345

06-NOV-2019

01:52 PM
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30892

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALICE LATULA, also known as Alice Mae Broussard-Latula, also known as 

Mae Broussard, also known as Julie Norris, also known as Elkin Broussard, 

doing business as Triple Js Marketing,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:12-CR-331

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alice Latula pleaded guilty to a single count of money laundering in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. She was sentenced at the low end of the 

applicable guidelines range to 78 months of imprisonment to be followed by 

three years of supervised release. She was also ordered to make restitution in 

the amount of $1,322,419. Latula now appeals her 78-month sentence as being 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 31, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-30892 Document: 00512987638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2015
No. 14-30892

substantively unreasonable in that it is greater than necessary to meet the 

sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The substantive reasonableness 

of a sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Latula concedes that her advisory guidelines sentencing range was 

properly calculated. Her challenge to her sentence focuses on what she 

characterizes as an anomaly created by U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C), which calls 

for the district court to enhance a defendant’s offense level by six levels if the 

offense involved more than 250 victims.1 Latula points out that a better 

educated and more financially-sophisticated defendant could hypothetically 

reach the same loss amount that she did by involving only 13 victims and would 

thus receive only a two-level increase for the number of victims. She therefore 

reasons that the application of the § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) enhancement had an 

outsized effect on her sentencing range. Latula also argues that, since she 

scored no criminal history points, a 78-month sentence was unnecessary to 

deter recidivism and protect the public from her future crimes.

The record reflects that the district court considered Latula’s arguments 

that a lesser sentence was warranted and determined that a sentence within 

the guidelines range was proper. We must defer to the district court’s 

sentencing decision, see Gall, 552 U.S. at 51-52, and Latula has not 

demonstrated that the district court’s choice of sentence was incorrect or not 

entitled to the presumption of reasonableness, see United States v. Cooks, 589 

F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

1 Latula’s offense involved 3,064 victims.

2

 

 Case: 14-30892 Document: 00512987638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PLAINS
RESOURCES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE
30, 1997, AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,557
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,307
<PP&E>                                         531,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                 168,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 490,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,721
<BONDS>                                        261,929
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,657
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   490,347
<SALES>                                        395,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               395,724
<CGS>                                          358,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  369,713
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,891
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,905
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,762
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,143
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,143
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8897-8898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03423]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLOR957000-L63100000-HD0000-15XL1116AF: HAG 15-0085]


Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of the following described lands are 
scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, 
Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this 
publication.

Willamette Meridian

Oregon

T. 23 S., R. 10 E., accepted January 23, 2015
T. 22 S., R. 10 E., accepted January 23, 2015
T. 25 S., R. 4 W., accepted February 5, 2015
T. 21 S., R. 9 W., accepted February 5, 2015
T. 28 S., R. 12 W., accepted February 5, 2015

[[Page 8898]]

T. 29 S., R. 11 W., accepted February 5, 2015
T. 38 S., R. 3 E., accepted February 5, 2015

Washington

T. 34 N., R. 44 E., accepted February 5, 2015

ADDRESSES: A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at 
the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW. 3rd 
Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch 
of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, 
Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business 
hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a 
message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply 
during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A person or party who wishes to protest 
against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State 
Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. 
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of 
protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty 
days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is 
received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed 
or otherwise resolved. Before including your address, phone number, 
email 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 can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so.

Timothy J. Moore,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Oregon/Washington.
[FR Doc. 2015-03423 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
-TOP-SECRET- 00

-.SI NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON; O.C.

THE NRO STAPP June 25, 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: 40 Committee Action

On June 22, I received a call from Mr. McAfee of State.

He was staffing the NRO June 4 paper on illumination of the

earth's surface requesting the 40 Committee's feelings on

overflights by active emitters. The Committee =embers would

like more information for background purposes in order that

they may better consider the requett. For example, the

extent of illumination, the nature of the requirement to

fly active emitters, alternative approaches for satisfying

the collection requirements, and the kind of targets. After

discussing the request with Colonel Marshall, I called Mr.

McAfee back on June 24 saying that we could prepare such a

paper but did not believe that it would materially assist

the Committee in arriving at their decision. Mr. McAfee

reiterated his desire for a paper or perhaps a presentation.

I agreed to a paper reserving a presentation for later and

only if required. The 40 Committee is preiently not pushing

for a discussion on this NRO initiatel limist and has set

no deadline for action. I have asked o prepare the

background paper.

COQ-SECREF-- SO

1111010111111 SON amessec 0811.411110

illMinftell UN se OM sew &my
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20112

Summary Calendar

RICHARD R. RONDENO,

Plaintiff–Appellant

v.

M/V ISLAND OASIS; NYK GLOBAL BULK CORPORATION; TOSHIN

KISEN COMPANY, LIMITED; KEISHIN KAIUN COMPANY LIMITED;

EVER BRIGHT SHIPPING SA; P & O PORTS LOUISIANA

INCORPORATED, (Ports America),

Defendants–Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CV-4028

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff–Appellant Richard Rondeno, proceeding pro se, filed suit in the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas based on injuries

he suffered unloading cargo from the M/V ISLAND OASIS while employed as 

a longshoreman by Defendant–Appellee P&O Ports Louisiana, Inc. The injuries

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 22, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 12-20112 Document: 00511966154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2012
No. 12-20112

he complains of occurred in May 2005. In the instant suit filed in November 1

2011, he seeks to raise claims under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., and the Jones Act, 46

U.S.C. § 30104. The district court dismissed Rondeno’s claims because the

LHCWA’s statute of limitations is one year, 33 U.S.C § 913(a), and the Jones

Act’s statute of limitations is three years, 46 U.S.C. § 30106. As Rondeno’s

claims are untimely under either statute, we AFFIRM the district court’s

dismissal of Rondeno’s suit. Additionally, P&O Ports’s motion to dismiss for lack

of jurisdiction is DENIED and its motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.

In August 2005, Rondeno filed a claim under the LHWCA with the United States 1

Department of Labor. That claim was eventually referred to an administrative law judge, who

in November 2011 allowed Rondeno to withdraw his claim without prejudice. Rondeno also

brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in May

2008. On Rondeno’s motion, the district court in that case dismissed those claims without

prejudice.

2

Case: 12-20112 Document: 00511966154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2012
# C_2005106EN.01002203.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/22

---

Removal from the register of Case C-476/03 (1)

1

(2005/C 106/49)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 20 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-476/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------



               ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS LIMITED

                            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 Asia Satellite Telecommunications Holdings Limited (the
"Company") Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Denis Lau, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

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

June 23, 2003



                                         /s/ Denis Lau
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Denis Lau
                                        Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                       EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
                       STATEMENT OF ALYN CORPORATION FOR THE TWELVE MONTH PERIOD
                       ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
                       BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                          24,411,000
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   61,000
<ALLOWANCES>                    4,000
<INVENTORY>                     41,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                24,631,000
<PP&E>                          5,094,000
<DEPRECIATION>                  67,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  32,203,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,137,000
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        11,000
<OTHER-SE>                      31,055,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    32,203,000
<SALES>                         129,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                194,000
<CGS>                           114,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   153,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,433,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              144,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2,253,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                    2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (2,255,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,255,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.25)
        

</TABLE>
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE " 

• 1-'4U6U.ST 2015 •• 

ID:11.3ARTMENIT OF THE AHR. FORCE 

WASH 1 NGTON 

OFFICE OF E. UNDER SC:-! V • 

Ifiar,ORANDUM FOR OAAIRMAN, COMOR 

SUBJECT: STOPPER Payload SIGINT Potential 

For your information,.tho PRO has developed and test-floun as 

. part of the Program three devices known as STOPPER, which 

are subotantially improved versions of SOC TOP. These devices are 

designed to detect sin-trucking and attempts at command probing 

and are a part of the PRO payload vulnerability effort. 

As a by-product of this operation, it 'appears that STOPPER haS 

potential as a SIGINT collector. A technical description of the 

payload has been given to NSA. and arrangements are being made to 

. forward copies of the data for r,rocessIy.- 2,. -

/7 ,,---- • 

VORTIN. JR. 

Etriadler a:noral, USAF 

Dirctor, NRO Staff 

*.■ 

' . .
# C_2005100EN.01003401.xml

| 26.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/34

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/3757 — 3i/Providence/Crown Entertainment)

(2005/C 100/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 15 April 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3757. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3757. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---