alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H.C.B., mother of J.N.D., minor child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3075

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Lori Theresa GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4271

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Timothy James FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3688

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Esneider HIDROBO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41340 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 28, 2017

•Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Esneider Hidrobo, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

*175PER CURIAM: *

Esneider Hidrobo, federal prisoner # 49387-019, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. In that motion, he sought a reduction of his 196-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine in accordance with Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Henderson,*636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

On appeal, Hidrobo maintains that he was eligible for a reduction under Amendment 782. The district court explicitly acknowledged his eligibility for relief. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). To the extent that Hidrobo may be arguing that the district court was therefore obliged to reduce his sentence, he is incorrect. *See United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 673 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2009).

The record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature of the underlying offense and the need to protect the public. *See*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B)(i)-(ii) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2010). Although Hidrobo notes that, as an illegal alien, he is not eligible for various Bureau of Prison programs, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in its denial of relief. *See Henderson,*636 F.3d at 717; *Evans,*587 F.3d at 673. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Hi-drobo’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. *See United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995).

*

 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.
STATE of Louisiana v. Dennis JOHNSON

No. 2017-KP-0514

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIOARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY**

PER CURIAM:

Granted. The court of appeal ruling that granted defendant an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is reversed for the reasons assigned by Judge Crain in his dissent. Relator's allegation that counsel's performance was deficient when conveying the 15-year plea deal offered to him by the state, which relator rejected, is conclusory and unsupported. The district court did not err in rejecting it summarily. La.C.Cr.P. art. 929. As noted by Judge Crain,

> The courts cannot bear the burden of an evidentiary hearing every time a plea offer is rejected, so that counsel can explain his rationale. Here, counsel did not fail to present a plea offer to the defendant. *Contrast* *Missouri v. Frye* , 566 U.S. 134, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012). Nor does relator allege that counsel advised him to reject the plea offer based upon an erroneous legal principle. *Contrast* *Lafter* [*Lafler v. Cooper* , 566 U.S. 156, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012) ]. By ordering an evidentiary hearing, the majority extends both *Frye* and *Lafler* beyond their respective fact situations, which I would not do. The 15-year plea offer expired the same day relator rejected it. Later, facting the possibility of a fourth offense habitual offender bill of information, relator accepted a harsher plea agreement and was sentenced as a second-felony habitual offender to tweny years imprisonment. The later plea was voluntarily and intelligently made following a textbook *Boykin* exchange between relator, his attorney, and the trial court, during which relator voiced no complaint regarding the earlier rejected plea offer.

*State v. Johnson* , 16-1471 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/21/17), 2017 WL 700484 (unpub'd) (Crain, J., dissenting). Therefore, the district court's ruling denying relator's application for post-conviction relief is reinstated.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

**REVERSED**

JOHNSON, C.J. would deny the writ and affirm.

Hughes, J., would deny the writ and affirm the court of appeal.

GENOVESE, Justice, would deny the writ and affirm the Court of Appeal.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 4)]

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

# ACTION:

Presentation of the Board's calculation for the change in railroad productivity for the 2016-2020 averaging period.

# SUMMARY:

In a decision served on February 3, 2022, the Board proposed to adopt 1.025 (2.5% per year) as the measure of average (geometric mean) change in railroad productivity for the 2016-2020 (five-year) period. The Board's February 3, 2022 decision stated that comments may be filed addressing any perceived data and computational errors in the Board's calculation. The decision also stated that, unless a further order is issued postponing the effective date, the decision will take effect on March 1, 2022.

# DATES:

Comments are due by February 24, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Comments may be e-filed on the Board's website at                         *www.stb.gov.*                         Comments must be served on all parties appearing on the service list.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available at                     *www.stb.gov.*

Decided: February 2, 2022.

By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.

Kenyatta Clay,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2022-02508 Filed 2-4-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20- 003 3 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. JUSTIN LEE LONGTINE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 1 5 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 7 2020

04/07/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0033
Anthony Dale CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4294

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 20, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 31, 2018

Anthony Dale Carter, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the denial of the Appellant's claim that he is entitled to 441 days of credit for count 11 as orally pronounced during his sentencing hearing and remand for the trial court to award that credit. *State v. Williams* , 870 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("It is a longstanding principle that a court's oral pronouncement controls over any written sentencing document.") (citing *Ashley v. State* , 850 So.2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ). We affirm the denial of the Appellant's other claims.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.

Wolf, Roberts, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Financial Statements of the BISYS Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries for
the three months ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          85,452
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,792
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,820
<PP&E>                                          63,868
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 280,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,088
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           523
<OTHER-SE>                                     193,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   194,032
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,462
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,759
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   321
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  92
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,750
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,623
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
#### Anthony TAGGART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; Dr. Goldstein, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15611

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed January 13, 2017

Anthony Taggart, Pro Se

Newton Oldfather, Esquire, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Anthony Tag-gart appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations arising from defendants’ failure to train jail employees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Taggart failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as *735to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Taggart’s health, or whether any constitutional deprivation resulted from an official policy, practice, or custom. *See Brandon v. Holt,*469 U.S. 464, 471-72, 105 S.Ct. 873, 83 L.Ed.2d 878 (1985) (a claim against a public official in his or her official capacity is the same as a claim against the governmental entity); *Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. #40 Cty. of Yamhill,*130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth requirements for municipal liability under § 1983); *Toguchi,*391 F.3d at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); *see also Scott v. Henrich,*39 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1994) (there is no municipal liability if there is no underlying constitutional violation).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Taggart’s request for alternative dispute resolution, set forth in the opening brief, and motion for appointment of counsel, filed on August 8,2016, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Branch vs. Bolton.

*Error to Desha Ovrcidt Court.*

Hon. Theodoeic F. Sorrells, Circuit Judge.

Piee & Cummins, for the plaintiff.

Tell, contra.

Mr. Justice Scott:

The only question in this case is determined by the point just decided, in the case of *Clements vs. Duncan et al.*

The judgment of the court below must, therefore, be affirmed.
### Department of Energy Carlsbad Field Office P. O. Box 3090

~ Carlsbad, New Mexico 88221
AT~~ 

# JUL 1 5 2015 Mr. Jonathan D. Edwards, Director Radiation Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW - MC 6608T Washington, D.C. 20460 Subject: Response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Letters Dated February 27, 2015 and

June 5, 2015 Regarding the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application
Dear Mr. Edwards: In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2014 Compliance Recertification Application completeness review letters dated February 27, 2015 and June 5, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is providing responses to 15 of EPA's completeness questions. The DOE will continue to submit phased responses to EPA to ensure questions are answered in a timely manner, although some items will require additional analysis. The DOE has previously provided responses to all of EPA's completeness questions from the December 17, 2014 letter. Pending responses for the remaining questions in EPA's February 27, 2015 and June 5, 2015 letters will be submitted at a later date, yet to be determined. This submittal includes four enclosures: • Enclosure 1 is a hard copy of 15 of the EPA's comments and DOE's responses; • Enclosure 2(on compact disc) provides the electronic version of the references as noted in each response. Copyrighted references, marked with an asterisk in "References" of Enclosure 1, are not provided in Enclosure 2. If there are specific copyrighted references EPA needs, DOE will work to obtain a copy; • Enclosure 3 is the "Status Report of DOE Responses to EPA Completeness Questions." The report is a table showing EPA comments received on December 17, 2014, February 27, 2015 and June 5, 2015, and DOE responses in this submittal, responses previously submitted and responses still pending; • Enclosure 4 is the "CRA-2014 Errata Tracking." The table is a cumulative list of errata that have been identified and corrected up to this point. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Russ Patterson at (575) 234-7457. Sincerely,

Bryson, Acting Manager Carlsbad Field Office
Enclosures
cc: w/enclosures T. Peake, EPA/ORIA K. Economy, EPA/ORIA J. Walsh, EPA/ORIA S. Ghose, EPA/ORIA R. Lee, EPA/ORIA N. Stone, EPA Region 6 F. Marcinowski, DOE/HQ D. Tonkay, DOE/HQ A. Harris, DOE/HQ W. Mouser, DOE/CBFO G. Basabilvazo, DOE/CBFO R. Patterson, DOE/CBFO 

## CBFO M&RC 'ED denotes electronic distribution

CBFO:EPD:RP:MN:15-2208:UFC 5486.00
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0550

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA ALLEN BALDWIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 31, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 20 2023

06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0550
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1439 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 

under the Medicaid program of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2021 

Ms. SPEIER (for herself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. SCANLON, Ms. 

ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Mr. COLE) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide 

for coverage under the Medicaid program of non-invasive 

prenatal genetic screening. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Expanded Genetic 

5 Screening Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL 

7 GENETIC SCREENING. 

8 Section 1905(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(3)) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1439 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking at the end 

2 ‘‘and’’; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘and’’ 

4 after the semicolon; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) non-invasive prenatal genetic screen8 ing for pregnant women of all age groups (pro9 vided in a facility, a home, or other setting);’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  Jan-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                                               88,424
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     89,411 
<PP&E>                                            1,047,567
<DEPRECIATION>                                      922,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      214,837  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               171,156  
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        214,837  
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     69,174
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   13,853  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (6,850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (6,850)   
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                              0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
                                            

</TABLE>