alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kono Michelle HYMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6187

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Decided: July 18, 2017

Kono Michelle Hyman, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Scott Andrew Lemmon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kono Michelle Hyman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We review a claim that the district court misapprehended the scope of. its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo and a district court’s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under that section for abuse of discretion. *203
      *United States v. Mann,*709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013).

Hyman argues that the district court misapprehended the scope-of its authority by failing to recognize the extent of the reduction authorized, as required under *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010), and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, p.s. (2010). The district court, however, acknowledged Hyman’s request for a sentence below his amended Guidelines range and asserted its discretion to reduce Hyman’s sentence, which was already at the lowest term in his amended Guidelines range. The court therefore understood its authority to reduce Hyman’s sentence. *See United States v. Stewart,*595 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2010) (allowing sentence reduction below amended Guidelines range under certain circumstances).

The district court simply declined to do so based on the facts and circumstances of Hyman’s case, as evaluated under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. In light of the “extremely broad discretion” a district court enjoys when weighing those factors, *see United States v. Jeffery,*631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011), we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny Hyman a sentence reduction.

Accordingly, we affirm' the district court’s order. 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*
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-50330

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Francesca Jo Ryan, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-997-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Francesca Jo Ryan has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed briefsin accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Ryan has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 1, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50330 Document: 00516842552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
No. 22-50330

2

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 responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-50330 Document: 00516842552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
Stephen BREWSTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D17-5140

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Rosel Falcon HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4032

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 5, 2019 t0225

Order 

Clerk

March 5, 2019

157443

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157443

COA: 340936 

Wayne CC: 13-008401-FH

TERRANCE JOSEPH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2018 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                           4,639
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     19,670
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        121,607
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,384
<DEPOSITS>                                     125,087
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,920
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,233
<LONG-TERM>                                      8,809
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,027
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 150,384
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,684
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  575
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,259
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,587
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,725
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,534
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      278
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,651
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,049
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.85
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.68
<LOANS-NON>                                        185
<LOANS-PAST>                                       289
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    83
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,506
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,544
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      137
<RECOVERIES>                                        15
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,700
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,021
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            679
        

</TABLE>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2013 / Notices 62355 

additional objects are imported 

pursuant to loan agreements with the 

foreign owner or custodian. I also 

determine that the exhibition or display 

of the additional exhibit objects at the 

Leonardo Museum, Salt Lake City, UT, 

from on or about November 23, 2013, 

until on or about April 27, 2014, and at 

possible additional exhibitions or 

venues yet to be determined, is in the 

national interest. I have ordered that 

Public Notice of these Determinations 

be published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the additional exhibit objects, contact 

Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office 

of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 

State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The 

mailing address is U.S. Department of 

State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 

5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505. 

Dated: October 11, 2013. 

Evan M. Ryan, 

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational 

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2013–24510 Filed 10–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 8502] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Ileana 

Sonnabend: Ambassador for the New’’ 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, and Delegation of 

Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000, 

I hereby determine that the objects to be 

included in the exhibition ‘‘Ileana 

Sonnabend: Ambassador for the New,’’ 

imported from abroad for temporary 

exhibition within the United States, are 

of cultural significance. The objects are 

imported pursuant to loan agreements 

with the foreign owners or custodians. 

I also determine that the exhibition or 

display of the exhibit objects at the 

Museum of Modern Art, New York, New 

York, from on or about December 21, 

2013, until on or about April 21, 2014, 

and at possible additional exhibitions or 

venues yet to be determined, is in the 

national interest. I have ordered that 

Public Notice of these Determinations 

be published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. 

Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of 

the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 

State (telephone: 202–632–6469). The 

mailing address is U.S. Department of 

State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 

5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505. 

Dated: October 11, 2013. 

Evan M. Ryan, 

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational 

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2013–24509 Filed 10–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Robert BLINN, Appellant, v. WEST SHORE VILLAS OF NAPLES OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

Case Nos. 2D17-2565 2D17-3601

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018

Andrew B. Greenlee of Andrew B. Greenlee, P.A., Sanford, for Appellant.

Robert G. Menzies of FisherBroyles, LLP, Naples, for Appellee.

VILLANTI, Judge.

In these consolidated appeals, Robert Blinn appeals the final judgment entered in favor of West Shore Villas of Naples Owners Association, Inc. (the Association), in Blinn's action against the Association for trespass, breach of the declaration of covenants, and private nuisance and a second final judgment awarding the Association its attorney's fees.

We reject without comment Blinn's arguments relating to the substantive final judgment concerning whether his claims were barred by the statute of limitations, waiver, or laches. However, as to the attorney's fees judgment, Blinn is correct that the trial court erred when it included in that judgment the Association's appellate attorney's fees incurred in an earlier appeal in which this court specifically denied the Association's motion for appellate fees. *See, e.g.*, *Bartow HMA, LLC v. Kirkland*, 146 So.3d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ("A trial court cannot award appellate attorney's fees unless the appellate court has authorized such an award." (quoting *Rados v. Rados*, 791 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ) ). The Association has properly conceded error. Hence, on this limited point, we reverse the final judgment awarding attorney's fees and remand for the trial court to recalculate the fee award after deducting the improper appellate attorney's fees. In all other respects, we affirm.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

MORRIS and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John R. MCLEAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6308

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

John R. McLean, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John R. McLean seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McLean 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 con*260tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Leon MYERS, a/k/a Meshaw, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4094

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Wallace H. Jordan, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Leon Myers seeks to appeal the district court’s criminal judgment, as amended in response to a motion in his criminal case. Myers’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court relied on impermissible factors in resolving the motion. Myei’s was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief.

Our review of the district court’s order is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012). While that statute gives us “jurisdiction to hear challenges to the lawfulness of the method used by the district court in making its sentencing decision,” we lack “jurisdiction to review any part of a discretionary sentencing decision.” *United States v. Davis,*679 F.3d 190, 194 (4th Cir. 2012).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court’s ruling was not in violation of the law. Because Myers asserts no ground upon which this court may review the district court’s substantive ruling, and our independent review of the record pursuant to *Anders*has revealed no such ground, we lack the authority to review the district court’s amended judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

This court requires that counsel inform Myers, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Myers requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Myers.

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*
AMERICAN RESIDUALS AND TALENT, INC., d/b/a Art Payroll, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA WORKERS' COMPENSATION JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.

No. 1D17-4578

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2018

Fred F. Harris, Jr., David C. Ashburn, and M. Hope Keating of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Thomas J. Maida, James A. McKee, Benjamin J. Grossman, Nicholas R. Paquette, and Nicholas J. Meros of Foley & Lardner LLP, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DENIED .

Ray, Bilbrey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
AQUA LIFE CORP., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Silvio RODRIGUEZ, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1152

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1


                    STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

         In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended  September  30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of Grayson  Bankshares,  Inc.  (the
"Company"), we, Jacky K. Anderson,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company,  and Blake M. Edwards,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

         (a)      the Form 10-Q fully  complies with the  equirements of Section
13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (b)      the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



         By:    /s/ Jacky K. Anderson                    Date: November 14, 2003
            -----------------------------------------
                Jacky K. Anderson
                President and Chief Executive Officer



         By:    /s/ Blake M. Edwards                     Date: November 14, 2003
            -----------------------------------------
                Blake M. Edwards
                Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 5, 2019

t0225 

# Order

Clerk March 5, 2019

157443

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157443

COA: 340936

Wayne CC: 13

- 008401

- FH

TERRANCE JOSEPH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2 018

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but is 1

not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-09-00539-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN RE THE TORO COMPANY

____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

1

Relator, The Toro Company, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above

cause on September 24, 2009. The parties herein have now filed an “Agreed Motion to

Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the agreed motion to

dismiss this original proceeding, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted.

Accordingly, the stay previously imposed by this Court is LIFTED and this original

proceeding is DISMISSED without reference to the merits thereof. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until
2

the case is finally decided.”). Pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed this

8th day of April, 2010.
Ronald MCFADDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2967

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 5, 2018]

Ronald McFadden, Milton, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Taylor, May and Kuntz, JJ., concur.