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

No. 17-6180

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Marvin Ray Wilburn, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Ray Wilburn 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. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court *83denies 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 Wilburn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wilburn’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
## NO. 12

- 18

- 00291

- CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:
MICHAEL L. BIRD,

RELATOR §
§
§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Michael L. Bird filed this original proceeding to challenge a temporary order in a suit affecting the parent child relationship and the denial of his motion to transfer. 1 On January 16, 2019, this Court conditionally granted Bird’s petition and directed Respondent to vacate her December 15, 2016, order denying Bird’ s motion to transfer and issue an order transferring the case to Bell County. By an order signed on January 28, Respondent complied with this Court’s opinion and order, rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss Bird’s petition for writ of m andamus as

moot

. Opinion delivered January 31, 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)

1 Respondent is the Honorable Pam Fletcher, Judge of the 349th District Court in Houston County, Texas. The Real Party in Interest is Angelique Ledesma.

## COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

JANUARY 31 , 2019

NO. 12

- 18

- 00291

- CV

MICHAEL L. BIRD, Relator V.

HON. PAM FLETCHER , Respondent

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by
Michael L. Bird
, who is the relator in c ause number 12

- 18

- 00291

- CV , and the petitioner in trial
court cause number 060

- 050, pending on the docket of the 349 th District Court of Houston County,
Texas . Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on October 23, 2018, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not
issue , it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the sam e is, hereby dismissed as moot

. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Antonio RIVERA-PORRAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40294 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

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

Jose Antonio Rivera-Porras, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and' HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Antonio Rivera-Porras 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). Rivera-Porras has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rivera-Por-ras’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Because that is usually the case, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. *See Massaro v. United States,*538 U.S. 500, 503-09, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). We therefore decline to consider Rivera-Porras’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without prejudice to collateral review.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rivera-Porras’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. According*350ly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5m 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.
#### Wilfredo Antonio MEDINA-ALARCON, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-72452

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Wilfredo Antonio Medina-Alarcon, Pro Se

Joseph Anthony O’Connell, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Wilfredo Antonio Medina-Alarcon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Medina-Aar con’s challenge to the BIA’s determination that his proposed social group is not cognizable, because the social group he proposed did not meet the immutable characteristic, particularity, or social distinction requirements. *See Reyes v. Lynch,*842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’ ” (quoting *Matter of M-E-V-G-,*26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))), Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Rafail Mosheyev, Appellant, v Allen Pilevsky, Respondent.

[771 NYS2d 150]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated October 16, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in entertaining the defendant’s belated motion for summary judgment *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]; *cf. Lee v City of New York,*307 AD2d 256 [2003]). In any event, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident. The defendant submitted his examining orthopedist’s medical report which specified certain degrees of limitation of range of motion in the plaintiff’s cervical and lumbosacral spines. The orthopedist failed to set forth the objective tests he performed to support his findings that the plaintiff had no ongoing disability *(see Franchini v Palmieri,*1 NY3d 536 [2003]; *D’Angelo v Guerra,*307 AD2d 306, 307 [2003]; *Black v Robinson,*305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]; *Gamberg v Romeo,*289 AD2d 525 [2001]). Since the defendant failed to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion should have been denied *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.
# 

## 

```

UNCLASSIFIED//

ROUTINE

R 151851Z DEC 20 MID200000438914U

FM CNO WASHINGTON DC

TO NAVADMIN

INFO CNO WASHINGTON DC

BT
UNCLAS

NAVADMIN 325/20

MSGID/NAVADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/CNO/DEC//

SUBJ/CNO MESSAGE TO THE FLEET - COVID VACCINE//

RMKS/1.  The nation and the Department of Defense are beginning to administer 
vaccines for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  These vaccines, which are currently 
voluntary, are a proven effective measure to better protect you, our Navy and 
our nation from this insidious threat.

2.  I ask that every member of our Navy team strongly consider receiving the 
vaccine not only for yourself, but for your shipmates, your family, and your 
fellow citizens.  By maximizing vaccination among our force and maintaining 
our mitigation measures of physical distancing, mask wearing, and hand 
washing, we will begin the return to normal.  I will receive the vaccine 
shortly after it is made available to senior DoD leadership.

3.  Initially, there will be a finite supply of COVID-19 vaccines, which will 
first be administered to DoD and civilian health care professionals and 
emergency responders  those most at risk of exposure. Vaccinating this 
population will take time, likely into January.  We will make the vaccine 
available more broadly through a tiered plan as production ramps up, 
prioritizing those executing our most critical missions.  I ask for your 
patience until the vaccine is available for you, and your continued 
compliance with those health measures we currently have in place.

4.  If you have questions about the vaccine, please ask your medical 
provider.  Your health remains our number one priority and Navy leadership, 
all of us, remain committed to being transparent about the vaccine delivery 
and dissemination plan.

5.  I continue to be extremely proud of our collective resilience and grit 
during this challenging time.  But we must REMAIN vigilant, even after 
vaccinations occur.

6.  Safe and healthy is the goal for 2021!  Together, we will make this 
happen.  Never more proud to be your CNO.

7.  Released by Admiral Mike Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations.//

BT
#0001
NNNN
UNCLASSIFIED//
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Chronimed Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory
H. Keane, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (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 results of operations
            of the Company.

                                  /s/ GREGORY H. KEANE
                                 ---------------------------------
                                  Gregory H. Keane
                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                  February 7, 2005
#### IN RE: TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY Petitioner

No. 16-3243

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 25, 2017

Filed: October 6, 2017

Wystan M. Ackerman, Stephen Edward Goldman, Robinson *&*Cole, Hartford, CT, Matthew Duff Turner, Armstrong & Teasdale, Jefferson City, MO, for Petitioner

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Greg Boss’s home in the Eastern District of Missouri suffered hail damage in June 2014. Boss filed a property damage claim under the replacement cost homeowners’ insurance policy issued by Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company. After Travelers paid Boss the “actual cash value” of the loss prior to repair or replacement, Boss brought this putative class action in the Western District of Missouri, alleging that Travelers breached the insurance contract by deducting “labor depreciation” from the estimated replacement cost in determining actual cash value. Travelers filed a motion to transfer venue “[fjor the convenience of parties and witnesses/in the interest of justice,” to the Eastern District of Missouri, where the insured property, Travelers’ Missouri claim office, and all Missouri-based documents and witnesses are located. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The district court denied the motion, and Travelers petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Missouri. “[W]e have recognized that the writ of mandamus is proper, albeit extraordinary, relief for an erroneous ruling on a motion to transfer under § 1404(a).” In re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d 909, 912 (8th Cir. 2010).

In its Order denying the motion to transfer venue, the district court relied, to a substantial extent, on the fact that “the issue most likely to be in dispute in this case is whether labor is depreciable when actual cash.value is calculated. This very issue has been previously addressed by the Court” in LaBrier v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 147 F.Supp.3d 839 (W.D. Mo. 2015). With interlocutory appeals in the LaBrier case also pending, on August 11, 2016 we entered an order in this case “that the petition will be held in abeyance pending the entry of a dispositive order in No. 16-3185, In re State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.” We have now- filed an opinion reversing the district court’s resolution of the labor depreciation issue in LaBrier and its certification of a class in that case, and remanding with directions to dismiss the named plaintiff’s complaint. In re: State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Nos. 16-3185 and 16-3562, 872 F.3d 567, 2017 WL 4227475 (8th Cir. Sept. 25, 2017). Accordingly, we now grant the petition for a writ of mandamus, vacate the district court’s Order dated June 8, 2016, and remand for further proceedings in light of our decision in In re: State Farm.
#### Winifred JIAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kaire POOLE; Randy L. Tews, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15147

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 ***

Filed March 16, 2017

Winifred Jiau, Pro Se ■

Dennis Matthew Wong, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Stockton, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Winifred Jiau, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in her action brought under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jiau failed to raise *614a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she properly exhausted her administrative remedies, or whether there was “something in [her] particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to [her].” *Albino v. Baca,*747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014); *see also Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (requiring proper exhaustion, which means “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)). Because we affirm the district court’s summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, we treat the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. *See Lira v. Herrera,*427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court must dismiss a case without prejudice when there is no presuit exhaustion[J” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach the merits of Jiau’s claims.

We do not consider Jiau’s contentions concerning appointment of counsel, leave to amend, leave to conduct discovery, or deliberate indifference to medical needs because they were not properly raised before the district court. *See L.A. News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int'l, Ltd.,*149 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 1998).

We reject as unsupported by the record Jiau’s contentions that defendants committed perjury.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 55773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22089]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8462]

Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice; FACA Committee meeting announcement.

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

    Summary: As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, the Department of State gives notice of a meeting of the 
Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services. This 
Committee has been formed in fulfillment of the provisions of the 2006 
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 109-435) and in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on Monday, September 30, 
from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Location: The American Institute of Architects, Board Room, 1735 
New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006.
    Public input: Any member of the public interested in providing 
public input to the meeting should contact Ms. Helen Grove, whose 
contact information is listed under for further information section of 
this notice. Each individual providing oral input is requested to limit 
his or her comments to five minutes. Requests to be added to the 
speaker list must be received in writing (letter, email or fax) prior 
to the close of business on Monday, September 23, 2013; written 
comments from members of the public for distribution at this meeting 
must reach Ms. Grove by letter, email or fax by this same date. A 
member of the public requesting reasonable accommodation should make 
the request to Ms. Grove by that same date.
    Meeting Agenda: The agenda of the meeting will include: A review of 
the major proposals and issues to be considered by the October/November 
Council of Administration and Postal Operations Council meetings in 
Bern, Switzerland; membership applications and renewals; and other 
subjects related to international postal and delivery services of 
interest to Advisory Committee members and the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Please contact Ms. Helen Grove of the 
Office of Global Systems (IO/GS), Bureau of International Organization 
Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at (202) 647-1044 or by email at 
GroveHA@state.gov.mailto:

    Dated: September 5, 2013.
Robert Downes,
Designated Federal Officer, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-22089 Filed 9-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-19-P
```
Gary Lee POISEL, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0181

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32





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 June 30, 2003 (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.







Date:

August 14, 2003



By: /s/ Jacky K. Anderson

Jacky K. Anderson

President and Chief Executive Officer







Date:

August 14, 2003

By: /s/ Blake M. Edwards

Blake M. Edwards

Chief Financial Officer









A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Grayson Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Grayson Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.