alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 12/28/2016No. 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. L arry , 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 o f 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. L arry , 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
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00124-CV 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 360th District Court 

 Tarrant County, Texas1 

Trial Court No. 360-563169-14, Honorable Patricia Bennett, Presiding 

June 14, 2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Gary Hawley Jr., appeals from the trial court’s Order in Suit to Modify 

Parent-Child Relationship. Now pending before this Court is Hawley’s unopposed motion 

seeking voluntary dismissal of the appeal. The Court finds that the motion to dismiss 

complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that 

granting the motion will not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would 

otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the Court has been delivered to date, we grant

the motion. The appeal is dismissed. Because the motion does not reflect an agreement 

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 
2

of the parties concerning the payment of costs, costs will be taxed against Hawley. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will 

issue forthwith.

Per Curiam
### Page 1 of 3 Disposition Comments

Docket No: 

### FAA

- 20 1 6

- 4 878 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 20 1 6

- CE

- 0 0 1

- AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.:

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM



### N o C omments/Only Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.

No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

lis t latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA

- IR

- M

- 8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one o

f the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO

, we don’t agree because

ISSUE 2 : Select one of the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree w ith because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If NO

, we don’t agree because

For additional issues, do uble

- click here

### Page 3 of 3 S ignature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.:

ASE Printed Name : Date

Branch M anager Date
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6290 

To modify the report requirements under the Adult and Juvenile Offender 

State and Local Reentry Demonstration Projects grant. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2023 

Ms. BROWN (for herself, Mr. CARTER of Louisiana, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, 

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. TRONE, Mr. CARSON, Mrs. 

CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, Mr. IVEY, and Ms. JACKSON LEE) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To modify the report requirements under the Adult and 

Juvenile Offender State and Local Reentry Demonstration Projects grant. 

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 ‘‘Recidivism Reduction 

5 Transparency Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6290 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDER STATE AND 

2 LOCAL REENTRY DEMONSTRATION 

3 PROJECTS. 

4 Section 2976(j) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Con5 trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10631(j)(5)) 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (5)— 

8 (A) by amending the paragraph heading to 

9 read as follows: ‘‘GRANTEE REPORT.—’’; 

10 (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

11 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

12 (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking the 

13 period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

14 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(C) makes recommendations on the estab16 lishment and implementation of adult and juve17 nile offender reentry projects that are substan18 tially similar to the successful projects funded 

19 by the grants awarded under this section.’’; and 

20 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(6) ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT.—The At22 torney General shall submit to Congress, and make 

23 publicly available on the appropriate website of the 

24 Department of Justice, an annual report summa25 rizing the results of the reports submitted by grant26 ees under paragraph (5), including the strategic perVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:09 Nov 15, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6290.IH H6290

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6290 IH

1 formance outcomes and overall progress of the 

2 projects funded by the grants awarded under this 

3 section.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
|Exhibit 23.2 |                                                                                            | 
|------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|             |                                                                                            | 
|kpmg         |                                                                                            | 
|             | KPMG  LLP
Chartered Accountants
Box 10426, 777 Dunsmuir Street
Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3
Canada | 



























Independent Accountants Consent







The Board of Directors

Moving Bytes Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-10826, 333-12078 and 333-12916) on Form S-8 of Moving Bytes Inc. of our report dated March 19, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Moving Bytes Inc. as of December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Moving Bytes Inc.

Our report dated March 19, 2004 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.  The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

(signed) KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants



Vancouver, Canada

April 13, 2005







|[[[[ | KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership is the Canadian member of KPMG International, a Swiss nonoperating association..
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21


                       Subsidiaries of Apple Suites, Inc.
                              At December 31, 2001
                 (The state of incorporation or organization of
                 each subsidiary is Virginia, except as noted)



Apple Suites General, Inc.
Apple Suites LP, Inc.
Apple Suites Management, Inc.
Apple Suites Pennsylvania Business Trust*
Apple Suites SPE I, Inc.
Apple Suites SPE II, Inc.
Apple Suites SPE III, Inc.
Apple Suites SPE IV, Inc.
Apple Suites SPE V, Inc.
Apple Suites SPE Holding, Inc.
Apple Suites REIT Limited Partnership
Apple Suites Services General, Inc.
Apple Suites Services Limited, Inc.
Apple Suites Services Limited Partnership
Apple Suites-MO, LLC

*  State of organization is Pennsylvania
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 December 22, 2015

d1214

Order 

Clerk

December 22, 2015

150703 & (87)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150703

COA: 315247 

Wayne CC: 12-009230-FC

RONALD JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to compel is DENIED. The application for 

leave to appeal the November 4, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. 

We DIRECT the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to file a supplemental brief within 

28 days after the date of this order addressing whether the defendant has established a 

scoring error regarding PRV 1 (Prior High Severity Felony Convictions), MCL 777.51, 

and his related claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, in light of the evidence 

filed by the defendant in the Court of Appeals (as an exhibit to his July 18, 2014 motion 

to remand) and in this Court, regarding his incarceration history in Texas.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
Johnson v. Gorczyk, No. S1404-00 CnC (Norton, J., July 6, 2005) 

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been 

reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is 

not guaranteed.] 

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT 

Chittenden County, ss.: Docket No. S1404-00 CnC 

JOHNSON 

v. 

GORCZYK 

ENTRY 

 Prisoner seeks relief through V.R.C.P. Rule 75 from a Department of 

Corrections disciplinary action taken against him while he was 

incarcerated. Convicted of kidnaping and murder in 1990, Prisoner is 

currently serving a 60-year sentence in a Virginia corrections facility. On 

May 19, 2000, after losing his prison job, Prisoner became visibly upset 

and agitated toward a prison counselor. Following a report and hearing, 

Prisoner was ordered into segregation for 15 days for violating the facility’s 

disciplinary code. Five months later, Prisoner filed this motion. 
 This court originally dismissed Prisoner’s complaint for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction because Prisoner had long since been released 

from segregation. Prisoner appealed, and the Vermont Supreme Court 

remanded for a fuller consideration of any negative consequences flowing 

from the action. On remand, Corrections has filed a motion for summary 

judgment. Plaintiff has not responded to this motion in any manner. 

 Corrections argues that Prisoner has suffered no adverse effects from 

his disciplinary action. The evidence shows the following: 

$ Prisoner did not lose any automatic good time credit under 28 

V.S.A. § 811(a). 

$ The disciplinary action was not registered on Prisoner’s “permanent 

record.” 

$ The parole board will not be told of this incident when petitioner 

becomes eligible for parole in 2033. 

$ There has been no change to Prisoner’s custody level. 

$ There is no evidence that the inmates or corrections officers consider 

Prisoner to be a “troublemaker” as a result of this incident. 

$ Prisoner lost some discretionary good time credit under 28 V.S.A. § 

811(b) because he could not participate in a rehabilitative program 

while he was in segregation. 

 With the exception of the last fact, the evidence shows no negative 

consequences as a result of this disciplinary action. As to the exception, the 

law is clear that Prisoner has no liberty interest in such discretionary credit, 

and no due process right to review. Conway v. Gorczyk, 171 Vt. 374, 379 

(2000). This means that the only “lasting” negative effect from Prisoner’s 

disciplinary action was the loss of a few discretionary credits to which Rule 
75 provides no right of relief. This leads the court to the same conclusion 

as before. Prisoner has no right of review or relief as a matter of law. 

 Based on the foregoing, the Department of Corrections’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment is Granted. Case is Dismissed. 

 Dated at Burlington, Vermont________________, 2005. 

 ________________________ 

 Judge
#### Guillermo Cruz TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOMEZ, Correctional Officer; Sanchez, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15358

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017

Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, Crescent City, CA, pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R, 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 ***

Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s due process claim because Trujillo had an adequate postdeprivation remedy under California law. *See Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (“[A] ... deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”); *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”).

The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s retaliation claim because Trujillo failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Trujillo’s filing of a grievance was the substantial or motivating factor behind defendants’ alleged conduct. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); *see also Brodheim v. Cry,*584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant’s conduct.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent , except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial information extracted from SEC
     Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
     statements as of and for the six months ended June 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883946
<NAME>                        TREEV INC
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,251)
<INVENTORY>                                        567
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,809
<PP&E>                                           7,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6,350)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,844
<SALES>                                         13,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,444
<CGS>                                            7,899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,307)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,307)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,307)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.31)



</TABLE>
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.46





AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR
TO THE 
REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL 401(k) PLAN
RESTATED AS OF JANUARY 1, 2014 




Regions Financial Corporation hereby amended the Regions Financial Corporation Supplemental 401(k) Plan, effective as of January 1, 2019, as follows:
    
1.    Section 4.2(b) of the Plan is hereby amended by replacing, in said subsection, the two instances of “4% (6% before January 1, 2012)” with the following: “5% (4% between January 1, 2012-December 31, 2018 and 6% before January 1, 2012)”.


2.    Section 4.3(b)(i) of the Plan is hereby amended by replacing, in said subsection, the one instance of “4% (6% before January 1, 2012)” with the following: “5% (4% between January 1, 2012-December 31, 2018 and 6% before January 1, 2012)”.


3.         Except as otherwise amended herein, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.




* * * * *
Russell MALONEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5340

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Dawn Kelly STRONG v. Clay SLATE, Jr.

2160649

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
#### Andrea PERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Angelia RAWSKI, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6462

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Alexis Kaylor Lindsay, Thornwell Forrest Sowell, III, SOWELL, GRAY, STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Andrea Person seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the court’s order denying her motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(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 petition 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 Person 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Patrick HAIR, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION, and Broward County Supervisor of Elections, Appellees.

No. 4D17-3661

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 7, 2018]

Patrick Hair, Sunrise, pro se.

Katie E. Sabo, Tallahassee, for Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Taylor, and Levine, JJ., Concur.