alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 May 29, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50932 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KHALEEL NA’IM SHAKUR, also known as Khaleel Shakur, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-02-CR-66-1

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DEMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Khaleel Shakur challenges his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for conspiring to make, utter, or possess a counterfeit security of an organization. He asserts for the first time on appeal that the factual basis was insufficient to establish that he had agreed to join a conspiracy. He has not shown that the district court committed plain error in accepting his guiltyNo. 02-50932 -2- plea, as Shakur’s admissions establish the elements of a conspiracy. See United States v. Angeles-Mascote , 206 F.3d 529, 530 (5th Cir. 2000). Shakur contends, also for the first time on appeal, that during his rearraignment proceeding the district court violated

F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11 in three separate instances. He maintains that the court did not explain the nature of the charge to him, in violation of F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(c)(1); did not adequately explain the effect and operation of supervised release, pursuant

to F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(c)(1); and did not ask him whether his willingness to plead guilty resulted from discussions between his attorney and the Government, pursuant to F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(d). He has not established that these omissions constituted plain

error. See United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002). Shakur maintains that the district court abused its discretion in departing upward at sentencing to impose a sentence of 60 months. The district court concluded that the upward departure was warranted based upon the underrepresentation of Shakur’s criminal history and the likelihood that he would commit more crimes in the future. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, p.s. The court’s explanation of its reasons for departure includes an implicit explanation for the rejection of intermediate categories. See United States v. Lambert , 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc). The degree of the departure was reasonable.No. 02-50932 -3- See United States v. Daughenbaugh , 49 F.3d 171, 174-75 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward. See United States v. McKenzie , 991 F.2d 203, 204 (5th Cir. 1993). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50125 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERNEST FRANKLIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-95-CR-240(1)

- - - - - - - - - -

August 21, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ernest Franklin appeals his sentences for conspiracy to

distribute crack cocaine and aiding and abetting in its

distribution. Franklin contends that the disparity between crack

and powder cocaine guideline sentences violates equal protection

and due process. This court has consistently rejected the

argument that the disparity in sentencing with respect to cocaine

powder and cocaine base constitutes a violation of equal
No. 96-50125

-2-

protection, due process, or the Eighth Amendment. See e.g.,

United States v. Wilson, 77 F.3d 105, 112 (5th Cir. 1996). We

find that Franklin's appeal is frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### Wolfe v. Best.

*Practice Act, 1915*— Plaintiff’s *statement*— Paragraphs—Material *allegation*— Written *instrument*— Copy *attached.*

1. The Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, does not interdict the inclusion of a number of allegations in one paragraph, but the inclusion of more than one material allegation in the same paragraph.

2. A “note,” without anything more, connotes a written instrument.

3. A written instrument is “attached” to the pleading, within the- meaning of the act, by incorporating a copy of it in the text of the statement or by annexing a copy by way of an exhibit.

Motion to strike off plaintiff’s statement. C. P. Lehigh Co., Jan. T., 1922, No. 80.

*Robert L. Stuart,*for plaintiff; *D. M. Garrahan,*for defendant.

March 20, 1922.

Reno, J.,

There is no merit in the motion. It is true that the fourth paragraph does contain a number of allegations of fact. But the Practice Act of 1915 does not interdict the inclusion of a number of allegations in one paragraph. It is the inclusion of more than one material allegation in the same paragraph that is prohibited. The allegations of paragraph four, read together, are equivalent to one major material allegation, namely, that plaintiff is the holder in due course of the note described in the paragraph. Perhaps it would have been sufficient to have averred that and no more; but the addition to that material allegation of other allegations which modify, clarify, explain and amplify it does not constitute a violation of the act: Fuel Oil Co. *v.*Clarendon Refining Co., 29 Dist. R. 805.

The further objection concerning the failure to state whether or not the contract is in writing is obviausly untenable, in view of the allegation that the suit is based upon “a promissory note in writing.” Indeed, the word “note,” without anything more, connotes a written instrument. Having incorporated a copy of the note in the statement, it was unnecessary to attach another copy as an exhibit. A written instrument is “attached” to the pleading, within the meaning of the act, by incorporating a copy of it in the text of the statement or by annexing a copy to the statement by way of an exhibit.

Now, March 20, 1922, motion to strike off the statement is denied. Defendant will file affidavit of defence within fifteen days after service of copy of this order upon his counsel. From James L. Schaadt, Allentown, Pa.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7585

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus CARROLL EUGENE DODSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-106; CA-05-562) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carroll Eugene Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Carroll Eugene Dodson appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dodson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also construe Dodson’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an applicationto file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a- 3 - successive § 2255 motion, a movant must assert claims based on either (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review, or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 8. Dodson’s claims do not satisfy either of these standards. We therefore decline to authorize a successive § 2255 motion. 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.

DISMISSED
Arthur V. Wittich 

MONTANA LAW COMPANY 

280 West Kagy Blvd. Ste. D-324 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

(406) 585-5598 

artw@law-advisor.com 

Attorney for Appellant R. Porch Construction, Inc. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 24-0177 

CITY OF KALISPELL, a Municipal Corporation 

Appellee/Petitioner, 

v. 

R PORCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Montana Corporation, 

Appellant/Interested Party/Defendant 

DIABLO INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Montana Limited Liability 

Company; KALISPELL AIRPORT ASSOC., a Montana 

Corporation; RED EAGLE AVIATION, INC., a Montana 

Corporation; and JOHN DOES 1-10, 

Interested Parties/Defendants. 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION 

Appellant R Porch Construction, Inc., moved this Court for an extension to 

file its appeal brief. The rnotion was unopposed. 

Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant's Motion for Extension to file its 

Appeal Brief is GRANTED, and the filing deadline is now , 2024. 

ORDER GRANTING TION FOR EXTENSION 

PAGE 1 OF 2 

04/19/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0177
DATED:this day of April, 2024. 

C: SArah D. Simkins 

Paul A. Sandry 

Taylor N. Eisenzimer 

Johnna Preble 

Arthur V. Wittich 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of the Supreme Court 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

PAGE 2 OF 2
Heath Morton

Heather Morton

Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography

76 Tanager Court

Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

Federal Aviation Administration:

Specific Sections in which Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography is seeking an exemption:

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF: EYE IN THE SKY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF

TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b),

91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI PHANTOM 

3 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MONDERNIZATION 

ANDREFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

Extent of relief and our reason for seeking relief:

In order to use our Unmanned Aircraft Systems for commercial use. We are seeking this exemption in order to legally 

conduct business and comply with all Federal regulations and standards put forth by the FAA while operating our 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

How our request would benefit the public as a whole:

Granting the petition for Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography would allow for us to be able to efficiently, legally, 

economically, and safely perform aerial video and photography of special events, sporting events, land survaillance, real 

estate, commercial inspections, and commercial maintenance over certain areas of these United States. Using Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems such as drone technology would greatly reduce negative impacts on the environment and also provide a 

safer alternative for businesses to conduct land and equipment inspections.

Reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least

equal to the existing rule:

By adhering to guidelines set forth by the FAA we would not be going above the recommended altitude nor flying at night 

therefore avoiding any hazardous accidents such as colliding with a manned aircraft. We will also be regularly test flying 

and doing daily maintenance logs to ensure the quads are in proper working order for each job or event as to prevent 

damage or bodily injury.

Summary to publish in the Federal Register stating --

1. SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF

TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b),

91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI PHANTOM

3 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MONDERNIZATION AND

REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

2. We are seeking exemption in order to use our UAS for commercial use.

Submitted on March 16, 2016 by:

Heath Morton

Heather Morton

Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography

76 Tanager Court

Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
# April an Opportunity to Salute Military Children

/ Published April 1, 2024

FORT INDIANTOWN GAP, Pa. – Though the label “military brat” is worn with pride by those who grew up in military families, many outside that lifestyle are unaware of just what those children go through, good and bad.

Each year, the Department of Defense joins national, state and local governments, schools, military-serving organizations, companies and private citizens in celebrating military children and the sacrifices they make, especially every April during the Month of the Military Child.

Started in 1986 by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the Month of the Military Child allows Americans to celebrate military children for their service on the homefront and in their communities.

According to the DOD, more than 1.6 million military children face challenges and unique experiences due to their parents’ service. Some of those challenges include moving away from friends, separating from their parents for long periods or seeing their parents come home physically or mentally hurt.

Of those 1.6 million military children, approximately 11,200 are children of Pennsylvania National Guardsmen who go through many of the same struggles as children of active-duty service members but lack access to the same kinds of programs, services, and community offered to those active-duty children.

The Pennsylvania National Guard’s Child and Youth Program, in conjunction with the State Family Programs office, offers support to children of Pennsylvania Guardsmen. The Child and Youth Program implements training and readiness programs for military youth. It also provides child and youth referral and resources to service members and families to reduce the challenges that arise from military service.

Throughout April, the Pennsylvania National Guard encourages service members, families and friends to show their support for military children by wearing purple and using the hashtag #purpleup on social media.

April 15 is designated as “Purple Up! Day,” when people are especially encouraged to wear purple. Some states, localities or schools may select different dates.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-00388-CV

Style: National Oilwell Varco, LP

v. Flowserve Corporation, Flowserve US Inc. and Flowserve S. de R.L. de C.V. (formerly

Flowserve S.A. de C.V.)

Date motion filed*: August 22, 2013

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: July 19, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 2 Current Due date: September 11, 2013

Date Requested: November 11, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: November 11, 2013

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant appellant additional motions to extend 

time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge's signature: /s/ Justice Rebeca Huddle



Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: August 27, 2013
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Market Integrity,  Inc.., on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Daniel
L. Hodges,  Chief  Executive  Officer and  Principal  Accounting  Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my  knowledge  and
belief:

         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.


Date: September 4, 2004

/s/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting 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
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of RADVision Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tsipi Kagan, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/Tsipi Kagan*
---------------
Tsipi Kagan
Chief Financial Officer
November 10, 2003


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
LAMONTE CHARLES 

ARRINGTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5213

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, David Alan Henson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 50956 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JESUS GABRIEL PEREZ RODRIGUEZ ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 1122

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Gabriel Perez Rodriguez 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). Perez Rodrigue z h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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 June 20, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50956 Document: 00515004638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2019No. 18

- 50956

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s mot ion 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. Case: 18-50956 Document: 00515004638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2019
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Holdings Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Holli C. Nichols, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                                                                      
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ HOLLI C. NICHOLS                                                 
|                   |  |     |  | Holli C. Nichols Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer