alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francis Oliverio VILLEDA-FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4543

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 9, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Leslie Carter Rawls, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Francis Oliverio Villeda-Fuentes pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Ville-da-Fuentes to 92 months’ imprisonment, a sentence within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his right to do so, Villeda-Fuentes has not filed a pro se brief. After careful consideration of the entire record, we affirm.

Before accepting Villeda-Fuentes’ guilty plea, the magistrate judge conducted a thorough plea colloquy, substantially complying with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Villeda-Fuentes’ plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. *See United States v. DeFusco,*949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Further, we discern no procedural error in the sentencing process, *see Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. *10338, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Villeda-Fuentes does not rebut the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, *see United States v. Louthian,*756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Villeda-Fuentes’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Villeda-Fuentes, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Villeda-Fuentes 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 Villeda-Fuentes. 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*
Paul NEWMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D14-4862

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 6, 2017

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Stovall v. Cooper*, 860 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (en banc); *Stokes v. State*, 851 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; *Brown v. State*, 793 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Fanie SIMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2280

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 10, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Brad R. Schlesinger, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Gross and Taylor, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To the Board of Directors Lightbridge Corporation 1600
Tysons Boulevard, Suite 550 McLean, VA 22102

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement No. 333-187659 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 21,
2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lightbridge Corporation (the
Company), appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2013.



/s/ANDERSON BRADSHAW PLLC

Salt lake City, Utah

March 21, 2014

---
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q/A of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”) for thequarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Donald P. Zima, Chief Financial Officer,Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

(1)                                The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date:   August 16, 2004 |   | /s/ Donald P. Zima                               |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                              |   | Donald P. Zima                                   |
|                              |   | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03272]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP)--CE22-004: Research Grants To Prevent Firearm-
Related Violence and Injuries; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, 
Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel 
(SEP)--CE22-004: Research Grants to Prevent Firearm-Related Violence 
and Injuries; April 4-8, 2022, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, 
Videoconference.
    The meeting was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 
2021, Volume 86, Number 233, page 69651.
    The meeting is being amended to correct the meeting titles and 
dates and should read as follows:
    CE22-004, Panel A: Research Grants to Prevent Firearm-Related 
Violence and Injuries; April 4-5, 2022; CE22-004, Panel B1: Research 
Grants to Prevent Firearm-Related Violence and Injuries; April 6-8, 
2022; and CE22-004, Panel B2: Research Grants to Prevent Firearm-
Related Violence and Injuries; April 6-8, 2022. The meeting is closed 
to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mikel Walters, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 
4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, 
Telephone (404)639-0913, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a372d1b160e1f08093a191e19541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="165b41777a627364655675727538717960">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-03272 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Benjamin Emigdio JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10090 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 17, 2017

*316James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Benjamin Emigdio Jimenez pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon and was sentenced to 44 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the district court misapplied U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 when it ordered his federal sentence to run consecutively to a not-yet-imposed sentence in a then-pending state prosecution for possession of marijuana. Counsel for Jimenez has since provided documentation establishing that the pending marijuana charge has been dismissed on the State’s motion. Because Jimenez’s challenge has been rendered moot, the appeal is DISMISSED. *See Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States,*506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992).

*

 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.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00052-CR

NO. 03-12-00053-CR

NO. 03-12-00054-CR

Reginald Timothy Prince, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 68543, 68388, & 68387, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Reginald Prince is appealing his convictions for engaging in organized criminal

activity and two counts of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 30.02, 71.02 (West

2011). Prince was sentenced by the trial court to eighteen years’ confinement for each conviction,

with the sentences to run concurrently. Included in the appellate record are certifications from the

district court concerning Prince’s right to appeal each of these convictions. These certifications state

that this not a plea-bargain case and that Prince has a right to appeal. However, these certifications

appear to be inconsistent with other portions of the appellate record.

The record indicates that Prince entered into a plea bargain with the State in which

the State agreed to recommend that Prince’s sentence for each conviction not exceed twenty years

and that the sentences should run concurrently. In exchange, Prince pleaded guilty to the three
charges. Therefore, the record indicates that Prince entered into a plea bargain, and thus he may

appeal only (1) “those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial” or

(2) “after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) (defining 1

“plea bargain case” as “case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the

punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the

defendant . . . .”); see also Wayne v. State, 756 S.W.2d 724, 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (explaining

elements of plea bargain).

We are required to examine a certification for defectiveness—“correct in form

but which, when compared to the record before the court, proves to be inaccurate”—and to use

Rule 37.1 and 34.5(c) to obtain an accurate certification. Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005); see Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c), 37.1. Given the apparent inconsistences between the

certifications and the record before us, we abate this appeal for fourteen days and instruct the district

court to prepare and send to this Court amended certifications that indicate whether this was in fact a

plea-bargain case and the extent of Prince’s right to appeal, if any, from the judgments of conviction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). A supplemental clerk’srecord containing the district court’s amended

certifications shall be forwarded to the clerk of this court no later than August 29, 2012.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Henson

Abated

Filed: August 15, 2012

Do Not Publish

 In his brief, Prince’s counsel acknowledges that this a plea-bargain case. 1

2
Kenneth R. BERESKI II, Appellant, v. LEIGHTON LAW, P.A., Appellee.

No. 3D17-2663

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 6, 2018

Kenneth R. Bereski II, in proper person.

Leighton Law, P.A. and John Elliott Leighton and Max N. Panoff, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Woodrow J. JONES, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. TEXAS JUVENILE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, Interim Executive Director (David Reilly), Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-40488 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 3, 2017

*216Woodrow J. Jones, Sr., Pro Se

Enrique Manuel Varela, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Woodrow J. Jones, Sr. sued his employer, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (“Department”), and its interim executive director for employment discrimination and retaliation seeking recovery pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. The district court held that Jones’s claims were barred under the statute of limitations.

In a Section 1983 action, federal courts apply the general personal injury statute of limitations from the forum state. *Price v. City of San Antonio,*431 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2005). In Texas, which is where the events leading to this case occurred, the general personal injury statute of limitations is two years. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003 (West 2017). The cause of action for a Section 1983 claim begins to accrue “when the plaintiff ‘knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.’ ” *Price,*431 F.3d at 893 (quoting *Jackson v. Johnson,*950 F.2d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1992)). A claim under Section 1983 is the exclusive remedy for a Section 1981 violation by a state actor. *Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.,*491 U.S. 701, 735, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989).

Jones’s alleged injury accrued when the Department terminated him on December 22, 2011. Jones did not file this lawsuit until May 2, 2014, more than two years after the injury. The statute of limitations had expired, and his Section 1983 claim is barred. The Section 1981 claim also fails because, as a claim- against a state actor, it is governed by Section 1983 and by the same two-year limitation period.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EX PARTE Milton HAMBRIGHT

CR-16-0607

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos PERRY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6820

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2017

Decided: July 13, 2017

Carlos Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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. *186§ 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 Perry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Perry’s motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal corn tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
SERVED: AUGUST 28, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AIR MEDICAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC. 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0551 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014WP910076) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway, Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 866-568-9886 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

F edera1 Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region (ANM-7) 

1601 Lind A venue Southwest 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0551 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
Exhibit 10.2

                       BUSINESS OUTSOURCING SERVICES INC.
                                 (the "Company")

                          FOUNDER'S SHARE SUBSCRIPTION

The undersigned (the
"Subscriber")    acknowledges  and agrees that:

1.   the Subscriber is a founder of the Company;

2.   the  Subscriber  subscribes  for eight hundred  thousand  (800,000)  common
     shares (the "Shares") in the  authorized  capital of the Company at a price
     of US$0.0125 per Share, and agrees to pay the purchase price for the Shares
     prior to their issuance;

3.   the Subscriber has been advised to consult the  Subscriber's own legal, tax
     and other advisors with respect to the merits and risks of an investment in
     the Shares and with  respect to  applicable  resale  restrictions,  and the
     Subscriber  is  solely  responsible  (and  the  Company  is not in any  way
     responsible) for compliance with:

     (a)  any  applicable  laws of the  jurisdiction  in which the Subscriber is
          resident in connection with the distribution of the Shares  hereunder,
          and

     (b)  applicable resale restrictions.


Dated as of the 5th day of June, 2008.


                                                 /s/ Jerome Golez
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Jerome Golez


INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION:

Full name:

Jerome Golez


Residential Address:

Block 117 Bishan St. #20-29
Singapore, 570117
|   | **Exhibit 32.1** |
|--------|------------------|

 

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Grayson Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”), we, Jacky K. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Blake M. Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 requirements 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: May 15, 2009 |
|--------|---------------------------|--------------------|

Jacky K. Anderson

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

|   | By:  /s/ Blake M. Edwards | Date: May 15, 2009 |
|--------|---------------------------|--------------------|

Blake M. Edwards

Chief Financial Officer