alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry Estuardo DIAZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 16-4385

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 25, 2017

Filed: October 11, 2017

Lauren Schmoke, Kasaby & Nicholls, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner.

Karen Yolanda Drummond, David Nicholas Harling, Carl H. McIntyre, Oil Oil, OIL, Vanessa M. Otero, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Henry Estuardo Diaz-Garcia petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ), which denied him withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Diaz-Garcia sought immigration relief based on his religion and on his membership in the proposed particular social group “Guatemalans who have rejected gang recruitment as youth and have fled the country and cannot return.” After careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding relief, because: (1) Diaz-Garcia’s proposed social group is not cognizable; and (2) the record does not compel the conclusion that the gang members who beat and threatened Diaz-Garcia when he refused their recruitment efforts did so for any reason other than to increase their numbers, rather than on account of his religion or any other protected ground. *See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder,*713 F.3d 375, 379-80 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review; enumerated grounds for immigration relief); *Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder,*662 F.3d 481, 483-84 (8th Cir. 2011).

*323We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because Diaz-Garcia did not show that he was tortured, or would more likely than not be tortured by the Guatemalan government, or people acting on the government’s behalf, if he returned. *See De Castro-Gutierrez,*713 F.3d at 381. Accordingly, the petition is denied. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The IJ’s determination that Diaz-Garcia’s-asylum claim was time-barred is not before this panel.
C. V., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0330

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 29, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Because C.V. has failed to serve an initial brief as provided by this court's order of April 10, 2018, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

NORTHCUTT, BADALAMENTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Tony SMITH v. Kandie Mechelle SMITH

2160104

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Jasna KUHAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEVICOR MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.; Joseph Baia, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2194

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2017

Decided: August 9, 2017

*207R. Scott Oswald, Kellee B. Kruse, EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC, Washington, D.C.; Richard T. Seymour, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Christine M. Costantino, Karla Grossen-bacher, SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jasna Kuhar appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants on her age discrimination, sex discrimination, and defamation claims. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in open court and in its supplemental memorandum opinion. *Kuhar v. Devicor Med. Prods., Inc.,*No. 1:15-cv-01533-LMB-MSN, 2016 WL 6211711 (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2016 & Oct. 24, 2016), 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.

*AFFIRMED*
*Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this order 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 January 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 06-50956

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee v. JOSE LUIS CORTEZ-GERONIMO also known as, Jose Luis Cortes

Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, Austin

--------------------- Before JOLLY, GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that the appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate sentence of the district court is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellee’s unopposed motion to remand case to the United States District Court for resentencing is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellee’s alternative

unopposed motion to extend time to file it’s brief thirty days after this court’s denial of the motion to vacate and remand is DENIED AS MOOT.
Howard C. QUATTLEBAUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4498

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Rowe, Ray, and Makar, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Victor Joseph RUSSO

1160205 (2150435)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
Exhibit 32.2

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 quarterly report of Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 3, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald M. DiNella, the Chief Financial Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: November 3, 2010



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ RONALD M. DINELLA                    
|                                         
|Ronald M. DiNella
Chief Financial Officer



30
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier CRUZ-ROSARIO, also known as Javier Cruz, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10365 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/23/2016

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Javier Cruz-Rosario, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Javier Cruz-Rosario has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cruz-Rosario has 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 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further rer sponsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

**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.
#### McLain *v.*State.

Opinion delivered May 5, 1930.

*732*Cochran & Arnett,*for appellant.

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Pat Mehaffy,*Assistant, for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). .Appellant insists that the court should have directed a verdict in his favor on the charge of obtaining “a thing of value”— medical services — under false pretenses, and we have concluded that the contention must be sustained. There is no testimony showing any representations whatever made, false or otherwise, to either of the physicians by appellant upon his pledging with their bookkeeper the alleged forged note as collateral to secure the payment of his notes to the firm and the individual member thereon given for closing his account due them for more than the sum of the collateral note; nor any testimony whatever indicating an intention upon the part of appellant to procure the professional services of either of the physicians because of the pledging of the collateral note. Tt is no violation of the statute against obtaining personal property by false pretenses *(§*2449, C. & M. Digest) to obtain credit or settlement of an existing account or indebtedness by such pretenses. *Jamison*v. *State,*37 Ark. 445; *Shelton*v. *State, 96*Ark. 237, 131 S. W. 871.

Even if it be conceded that obtaining the services of a physician by false pretenses would come within the provisions of the said statute within the meaning of the *733term ‘ ‘ or other valuable thing, ’ ’ and we are cited to only one authority, a case from the Supreme Court of Mississippi construing a like statute to that effect, there is no evidence showing that it was the intention of appellant to procure any such services in the future upon the pledging of the collateral note, which was for a less amount in fact than the amount of the notes it was given as collateral to secure. There was testimony showing that appellant had come to one of the physicians and procured the collateral note for collection, stating to him at the time that the makers were ready to pay it, and that he neither collected the note nor returned it, and one of the instructions of the eight first given and Avithdrawn Avas on that point allowing the jury to convict appellant if it found such to he the case, as though he had procured the note “a thing of value” by the false representation that the makers A\-ere ready to pay it. There should, of course, have been no such instruction given, and, conceding that it Avas sufficiently A\TithdraA\m by the statement to the jury that such instructions Avere not to be considered, it may nevertheless have influenced-the jury’s verdict. In any event there is no sufficient testimony in this case to support the verdict of the jury, and the judgment must he reversed, and the cause remanded for a neAV trial. It is so ordered.
Justin GANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5040

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Justin Gander, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Ray, Bilbrey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 202 202 - 1 March 17, 2011[date of amended rule adoption]

RULE 321. SOLVENT CLEANING MACHINES AND SOLVENT CLEANING. (Adopted 2/24/1975, 

readopted 10/23/1978, revised 6/11/1979, 7/10/1990, 4/17/1997, 7/17/1997, 9/18/1997, and 

9/20/2010, and [date of amended rule adoption]) 

A. Applicability

This rule shall apply to any person who owns, operates, or uses any solvent cleaning machine or performs 

any solvent cleaning operation outside of a solvent cleaning machine during the production, repair, 

maintenance, or servicing of parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment, or in general work areas at any 

stationary source. 

B. Exemptions 

Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, the provisions of this rule shall not apply to the following: 

[. . .]

6. Any equipment or operation that is subject to or specifically exempted by any of the following 

District rules. 

a. Rule 325, Crude Oil Production and Separation. 

b. Rule 326, Storage of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids. 

c. Rule 330, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products. 

d. Rule 337, Surface Coating of Aircraft or Aerospace Vehicles Parts and Products 

Components. 

e. Rule 339, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations. 

f. Rule 343, Petroleum Storage Tank Degassing. 

g. Rule 344, Petroleum Sumps, Pits and Well Cellars. 

h. Rule 349, Polyester Resin Operations. 

i. Rule 351, Surface Coating of Wood Products. 

j. Rule 353, Adhesives and Sealants. 

k. Rule 354, Graphic Arts. 

Notwithstanding this exemption, the applicable Rule 321 requirements apply if a rule for any 

above process specifies a solvent cleaning machine shall comply with the applicable provisions of 

Rule 321. [. . .] 

 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

 

 DENNIS A. MARSHALL 

 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL 

 By____________________________ 

 Deputy 

 Attorneys for the Santa Barbara County 

 Air Pollution Control District
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50287

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

JESUS MANUEL GUEDEA-MARTINEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:06-CR-751-2 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Jesus Manuel Guedea-Martinez appeals the district court’s denial of a 

sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He contends that the court, 

in finding that he did not warrant a reduction of his sentence, failed to properly 

apply the applicable sentencing factors and erroneously construed the record. 

Section 3582(c)(2) permits a discretionary modification of a defendant’s 

sentence for cases in which the Guidelines sentencing range has subsequently 

 

* 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

Fif h Circuit

FILED

December 28, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50287 Document: 00513814138 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2016
No. 16-50287

2 

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. § 3582(c)(2); see United States v. 

Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). In the context of a § 3582(c)(2)

motion for a sentence reduction, the district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors, although it “need not mention the § 3553(a) factors or 

articulate its reasoning for why the factors support its decision on the motion." 

United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal citation 

omitted). We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence 

pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 

636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Guedea-Martinez has not demonstrated that the district court 

committed any error of law or that its decision was based on a clearly erroneous 

assessment of the evidence, particularly because at the sentencing hearing the 

district court quickly corrected its initial misconstruction of the alleged 

obstruction enhancement. Larry, 632 F.3d at 936. The court’s allocution at 

the hearing indicated several legitimate § 3553(a) bases for its denial, 

including the seriousness of the offense, the nature and circumstances of the 

offense, and the characteristics of Guedea-Martinez. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A). 

Because the district court supported its decision by a number of § 3553(a) 

factors and committed no error, there is no basis to disturb the denial of a 

sentence reduction here. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-50287 Document: 00513814138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2016
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 The Honorable Larry A. Burns, United States District Judge for the ***

Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRYAN BRASWELL, a married person

but filing in his individual capacity,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SHORELINE FIRE DEPARTMENT,

formerly known as King County Fire

District No 4,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-35510

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00924-RSM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 20, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge. 

*** 

FILED

MAR 28 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Plaintiff Bryan Braswell appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment to Shoreline Fire Department. Reviewing de novo, Dietrich v. John

Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

1. In the previous appeal, we did not decide that Plaintiff had not received

due process; rather, that question was open on remand. See Braswell v. Shoreline

Fire Dep’t, 622 F.3d 1099, 1103 n.2 (9th Cir. 2010) ("We note that the district

court concluded only that Plaintiff had no constitutional right and that Dr. Somers

did not tortiously interfere with Plaintiff’s employment. It did not consider

whether Dr. Somers might be entitled to qualified immunity . . . , nor did the court

rule on other legal issues that the parties raised. Those issues remain open on

remand." (emphasis added)).

2. We assume, but need not decide, that the actions taken implicated

Plaintiff’s liberty interest. Applying the three factors from Mathews v. Eldridge,

424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976), to the facts of this case, we conclude that Plaintiff

received constitutionally adequate process. Most significantly, before Dr. Somers’

decision became final, Plaintiff submitted a written statement, had two in-person

meetings with decision-makers, and had an opportunity to respond to accounts by

other witnesses.

AFFIRMED.
Michael A. FLAMMIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3878

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Stephen D. LEONARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2031

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2017

Petitioner's motion is a duplicate of a motion to produce records in case no. 3D16-2298, which is pending before this Court; therefore, this petition is dismissed as duplicative of the pending appeal.

SUAREZ, LAGOA and FERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.
# SECNAV Del Toro Meets with Wisconsin Governor, Michigan Cabinet, and Leadership of Fincantieri Marinette Marine

### 17 Apr 2024

Secretary Del Toro held these meetings around the keel laying of the future USS Constellation (FFG 62), the lead ship in the Constellation-class, awarded to Fincantieri Marinette Marine in 2020. In addition to Governor Evers, participants included Secretary Amy Pechacek of Wisconsin’s Department of Workforce Development, Director Susan Corbin of Michigan’s Department of Labor & Economic Opportunity, Major General Paul Rogers of the Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and CEO Quentin Messer of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation.

A key area of discussion centered on ways to improve workforce recruitment, retention, and quality of life at Fincantieri Marinette Marine. Workforce attrition has been a significant driver of delays in the Constellation-class program. The Navy has assessed that USS Constellation (FFG 62) will deliver to the fleet in 2029. Secretary Del Toro directed the Navy program office and Fincantieri Marinette Marine to spare no effort to improve this timeline.

“America’s Northern Coast is our nation’s manufacturing heartland,” Secretary Del Toro affirmed. “I am determined to fully harness the Midwest’s industrial might and renowned workers on behalf of American seapower.”

Secretary Del Toro continued, “In our meetings with Governor Evers and Governor Whitmer’s Cabinet, I was gratified by their shared commitment to helping us mobilize the world-class skilled workforce in Wisconsin and Michigan to meet our Navy’s needs, both now and into the future. The Navy’s investments in Wisconsin and Michigan under the Biden Administration are bringing good paying new-collar and blue-collar jobs to these states, building thriving communities that will play a critical role in our national security for decades to come.”

The Constellation-class guided missile frigate represents the Navy’s next generation small surface combatant. Constellation will be an agile, multi-mission warship capable of operations in both blue-water and littoral environments, delivering competition and combat-credible forward presence.  

More information on the Constellation-class guided missile frigate program can be found here.