alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnoldo Avita GAMBOA, a/k/a Angel Martinez, a/k/a Tony, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6356

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

*169Amoldo Avita Gamboa, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Joshua Clarke Hanks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Amoldo Avita Gamboa appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Gamboa,*No. 2:08-cr-00151-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 2, 2017). 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 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

August 14, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Supporting Documents for 2017-2025 Light- Duty (LD) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards - Copyrighted Website References to suppo rt the Solar Panel Credit Discussed in Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document for the Final Rule

FROM: Arvon L. Mitcham, Program Manager/Engineer

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

This memo covers documents for a website reference contained in Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2017-2025 Light-Duty (LD) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards Final Rule. The following web address for the refe rence is listed below:

• http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/200905 19/170318/.

Due to the copyrighted nature of this material, we are not including this material in the docket.
However, the web address above may be used to acces s this material.
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41604 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LUIS ALBERTO HAGEN-PORRAS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-576-2
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Luis Alberto Hagen-Porras appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Hagen-Porras contends that the district court abused its discretion in not allowing him to withdraw his plea and that his conviction should be reversed because his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Hagen-Porras insists that he is innocent and that he pleaded guilty under pressure from his trial attorney in the mistaken United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-41604

2 belief that he was certain to be convicted and certain to receive the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence if he proceeded to trial. We review a district court’s denial ofa motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. U nited States v. Powell , 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003). When determining whether to allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court should consider if: (1) the defendant asserted his innocence, (2) withdrawal would prejudice the government, (3) the defendant delayed in filing his withdrawal motion, (4) withdraw al would substantially inconvenience the court, (5) close assistance of counsel was available, (6) the original plea was knowing and voluntary, and (7) withdrawal would waste judicial resources. See United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-34 (5th Cir. 1984). The defendant has the burden of establishing a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea. See United States v. Still , 102 F.3d 118, 124 (5th Cir. 1996). The decision whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a plea is based on the totality of the circumstances. See Powell , 354 F.3d at 370. In this case, the district court denied Hagen-Porras’s motion towithdraw his plea after finding that his plea was knowing and voluntary and that his attorney represented him zealously. Hagen-Porras has not shown that these findings are incorrect. SeeStill , 102 F.3d at 124. The district court’s judgment is, in all respects, AFFIRMED.
#### Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., as Subrogee of Duncan B. Parsons, Respondent, *v.*Meyers Brothers Operations, Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

April 26, 1972.

*Heller & Heller (Hugh M. Heller*of counsel), for appellant. *Albert P. Thill*and *A. Paul Goldblum*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff failed to establish the creation of a bailment relationship when its subrogor parked his automobile in defendant’s parking lot (see *Ellish*v. *Airport Parking Co. of Amer.,*69 Misc 2d 837, decided herewith).

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and complaint dismissed.

Concur — Croat, P. J., Schwartzwald and Margett, JJ.
Damian SIMMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1088

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6257 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6257

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide Medicare 
   coverage of ambulance services that do not include transportation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2023

  Ms. Balint introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide Medicare 
   coverage of ambulance services that do not include transportation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Medical Services 
Reimbursement for On-Scene and Support Act''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF AMBULANCE SERVICES THAT DO NOT INCLUDE 
              TRANSPORTATION.

    Section 1861(s)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395x(s)(7)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(7);''
            (2) in subparagraph (A), as added by paragraph (1), by 
        inserting ``and'' after the semicolon; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(B) notwithstanding subparagraph (A), ambulance service 
        includes such services described in such subparagraph that are 
        furnished on or after January 1, 2025, to an individual by a 
        provider or supplier of ambulance services regardless of 
        whether the provider or supplier provides the transport for the 
        individual at a reimbursement comparable to the transport 
        reimbursement;''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Larry James TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne BYRD, Defendant-Appellee, and Paul M. Burch; James Bogle; J. Richard Jones, Defendants.

No. 17-6325

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

*248Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK *&*WILLIAMS, PA, 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:

Larry James Tyler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Tyler that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Tyler waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         187,610
<SECURITIES>                                   145,916
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,052
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               347,748
<PP&E>                                           7,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,765
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,721,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,760,396
<OTHER-SE>                                    (74,674)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,721,761
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               115,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (62,928)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (65,328)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (65,328)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.59)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

                                [GRAPHIC OMITTED]
                                 DIXON ODOM PLLC
                  CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND CONSULTANTS



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-83875) of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc. of our report
dated October 24, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial condition of Wake
Forest Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30, 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
the year ended September 30, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc.

/s/ Dixon Odom PLLC

Sanford, North Carolina
December 29, 2003
Patrick A. FOSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-101

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**







**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Shumate Industries, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Larry C. Shumate, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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
                theCompany.








/s/
      Larry
      C. Shumate





Larry
      C.
      Shumate, Chief Executive Officer


March
      30,
      2007
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Philip M. Wall, the Chief
Financial Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    Philip M. Wall  
|                      |  |  |  | Philip M. Wall         
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Carlos FIGUEROA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1877

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Rodney H. HOLMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-240

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

Rodney H. Holmes, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Holmes appeals the Miami-Dade Circuit Court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 2002, Holmes was convicted of attempted first degree murder, attempted robbery, and attempted burglary with an assault; and the jury further found that a firearm was discharged and caused great bodily harm during the commission of these crimes. The trial court sentenced Holmes to life imprisonment.1 This sentence was affirmed in *Holmes v. State*, 883 So.2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

Thereafter, Holmes has filed ten post-conviction motions or petitions in this Court, including the instant petition.2 He has attacked his sentence unsuccessfully by arguing that his sentence under a firearm enhancement was unlawful because there was insufficient evidence at trial that he possessed or discharged a firearm during the alleged crimes (an argument he again makes in pending case 3D16-2076). In the instant appeal, Holmes alleges that his life sentence is unconstitutionally impermissible because it is indefinite. As the trial court noted in its written order below, this issue has been resolved by the Florida Supreme Court adverse to Holmes's position. *Ratliff v. State*, 914 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2005) (holding that a sentence of life imprisonment does not violate the proscription in Article I, Section 17 of the Florida Constitution against an indefinite term of imprisonment).

Accordingly, we deny the instant petition.

****ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE****

Holmes is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days from the date of this opinion, why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related to his criminal sentencing in circuit court case number 01-18524A.

*859If Holmes does not demonstrate good cause, any such further and unauthorized filings by Holmes will subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including forfeiture of gain time. *See* § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2017).

Petition denied. Order to show cause issued.

1

The trial court entered an order in 2009, to make a technical correction to the sentence, but the corrected order left intact the life sentence.

2

*Holmes v. State*, 221 So.3d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (table); *Holmes v. State*, 203 So.3d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (table); *Holmes v. State*, 134 So.3d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (table); *Holmes v. State*, 107 So.3d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (table); *Holmes v. State*, 46 So.3d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (table); *Holmes v. State*, 46 So.3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (table); *Holmes v. State*, 982 So.2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (table); *Holmes v. State*, 956 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (table). In addition, Holmes has another post-conviction appeal pending in this Court in case number 3D16-2076.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Cynthia D. Little, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 912]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 31, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

On May 11, 2002, claimant, a field representative for a child care council, submitted a doctor’s note following a three-day absence from work which indicated that she could return to work on May 16, 2002 and that there had been a $43 co-payment, which the employer ultimately reimburses. Upon verifying the information with claimant’s doctor, the employer learned that the co-payment and return date had been altered. The employer testified that claimant was discharged after she admitted to the alteration without explanation. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, reversing the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. It has been held that “submission of falsified or altered documentation to an employer may constitute misconduct” *(Matter of Stanton [Commissioner of Labor],*275 AD2d 844, 844 [2000]; *see Matter of Cortada [New York City Personnel Dept.—Commissioner of Labor],*275 AD2d 825 [2000]). Inasmuch as claimant was clearly aware of the employer’s policy against altering documentation, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion *(see Matter of Gonyou [Commissioner of Labor],*297 AD2d 848 [2002]). Claimant’s proffered excuse, that she mistakenly submitted the wrong documents, presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Fay [Commissioner of Labor],*261 AD2d 671 [1999]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### Arthur LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55491

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Arthur Lopez, Arthur Lopez

Richard S. Sontag, Esquire, Attorney, Ruzicka & Wallace LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

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 **

Arthur Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his- civil rights and antitrust action arising from a business loan transaction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with the local rules. *Ghazali v. Moran,*46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lopez’s action because Lopez failed to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. *See*C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (“The failure to file any required document ,.. may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.... ”); *Ghazali*46 F.3d at 53 (discussing factors to guide the court’s evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett*v. *Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Harold HOLT v. LIMESTONE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160548

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6239 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6239

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 250 Edward Street in Branchville, South Carolina, as the ``Betty W. 
                   Henderson Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 6, 2023

 Mr. Clyburn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 250 Edward Street in Branchville, South Carolina, as the ``Betty W. 
                   Henderson Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BETTY W. HENDERSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 250 Edward Street in Branchville, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Betty W. Henderson Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Betty W. 
Henderson Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```