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

No. 16-4430

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

David Schles, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Lisa Grimes Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Wayne Davis appeals his 151-month sentence imposed by the district court after his guilty plea to possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) (2012). Davis’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Davis’ sentence is reasonable. Although notified of his right to file a pro se brief, Davis has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appeal waiver in Davis’ plea agreement. We dismiss the appeal.

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. *United States v. Copeland,*707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013). A defendant’s waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and intelligently.” *United States v. Manigan,*592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). An appeal waiver generally is enforceable “if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and that the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” *United States v. Thornsbury,*670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Davis knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that the sentencing issues Davis seeks to raise on appeal fall squarely within the scope of his waiver of appellate rights. Moreover, in accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the record for any potentially meritorious issues that might fall outside the scope of the waiver and have found none. *See Copeland,*707 F.3d at 530. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition *181the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Davis 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 Davis. 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*
Wendy CHESTER v. Ruby D. LABASSE

2016-CT-00414-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 1, 2018 Closed: May 3, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
Michael NUNNERY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph T. GREEN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-1117

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          21,647
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,429
<PP&E>                                         138,265
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,750
<BONDS>                                          1,214
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           207
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,717
<SALES>                                        126,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               126,089
<CGS>                                           44,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (846)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,672
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,249
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,795
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,795
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dennis Alexis LANZA-GUILLEN, also known as Dennis Lanza, also known as Dennis Alexis Lanza Guillen, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20105 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

Dennis Alexis Lanza-Guillen, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dennis Alexis Lanza-Guillen 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). Lan-za-Guillen has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous *375issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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.
Tyrone Lamont SUMMERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case Nos. 5D17-1003 5D17-1004

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Magnetic field simulation and years of field

testing utilized to optimize power‐outputefficiency and torque‐curves for multi‐rotorand sUAS specific applications. The XF Multi‐Rotor Brushless Motor series produce a high‐level of performance and are built to thehighest‐quality standards and manufacturingtechnology available.

All XF Series motors have dual prouse with the included KDE Direccompatibility with a wide‐rangoptions for easy installation.

Stator construction mm silicon steel temperature (240°Cwindings for optimtransfer. All windina continuous, Kevlateeth to reduce cha

High‐temperature (200°C/392°Fcome pre‐soldered with 24K bhassle‐free installation.

All XF Series muniversal mouretaining collaand safety with All motors use bearings for ex

All XF Series motors use tr

rated (180°C/356°F), N45magnets for industry‐leadinmagnet retaining ring, machbonds are incorporated at secure a permanent connect
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
  
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of American Security Resources Corporation,
a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
Marlin Williford, Chief Financial Officer, does hereby certify, pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
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 result of operations of the
Company.
  Date:
      April 14, 2008
              By:/s/ Marlin
      WillifordName:
      Marlin WillifordTitle:
      CFO
 
  
  A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to American Security Resources Corporation and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Steven T. HUMPHREY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1155

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 18, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition of the orders asserted by appellant as being appealed and is, therefore, untimely. Appellant's motion for clarification of sentence is dismissed as moot.

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ, Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Lee CRUDUP, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6133

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

*159Jesse Lee Crudup, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jesse Lee Crudup 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 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 Crudup 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Caesar Humberto SALINAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-51026 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 1, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Caesar Humberto Salinas, Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Caesar Humberto Salinas, federal prisoner # 53195-079, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). He appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion in which he argued that he was eligible for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Drug Quantity Table.

Salinas was sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 2Sl.l(a), which provides that the appropriate base offense level is derived from the base offense for the underlying offense. Because Salinas was held responsible for 25 kilograms of cocaine, his base offense level was 34 under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl,l(c). The district court denied the § 3582 motion, determining that it did not have authority to reduce Salinas’s motion because it was based on § 2S1.1 and not the Drug Quantity Table.

When considering whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court must first determine whether a reduction is consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 by determining the defendant’s eligibility for a reduction and the extent of the authorized reduction. *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). If the defendant is eligible for a reduction, a district court then considers the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to determine whether that reduction is warranted, either in whole or in part, under the particular circumstances of the case. *Dillon,*560 U.S. at 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to reduce a sentence under step one. *United States v. Jones,*596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010).

Salinas was sentenced under § 2S1.1 of the Guidelines, but the sentencing range was determined by the Drug Quantity Table. Thus, “the guidelines range applicable to” Salinas was “subsequently lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual.” *See*§ 1B1.10(a)(1). Had Salinas been sentenced under the Guidelines as amended, the recommended range of his punishment would have been 121 to 161 months of imprisonment instead of 151 to 188 months. The district court’s conclusion that it lacked authority to reduce Salinas’s sentence was error. *See United States v. Torres,*856 F.3d 1095, 1099 (5th Cir. 2017).

*303We VACATE the district court s denial of Salinas’s motion to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and REMAND this case to the district court for consideration of whether a reduction is warranted under the § 3553(a) factors. We DENY his motion for the appointment of counsel.

*

 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.
Zachariah STRICKLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3850

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 18, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm appellant's convictions and sentences in this *Anders*1 appeal, but remand for correction of the judgment to reflect that, in case number 16-CF-2598, count 4 is a first-degree felony. *See* § 893.135(1)(f)1.a., Fla. Stat. (2016). In case number 17-CF-501, counts 2 through 6 are third-degree felonies. *See* § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017). *See**King v. State* , 201 So.3d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming an *Anders* appeal but remanding for correction of scrivener's errors in the written judgment); *Washington v. State* , 37 So.3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (same).

AFFIRMED .

Ray, Bilbrey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.

1

*Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
#### Janice Wolk GRENADIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, LLC; Howard N. Bierman; Equity Trustees, LLC; Mark R. Galbraith; Wells Fargo; Bank of America, f/k/a LaSalle Bank, *270as successor-in-interest, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and Bank of America, f/k/a LaSalle Bank, Defendant.

No. 16-2459

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: July 27, 2017

Janice Wolk Grenadier, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Ryan Michael, BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, Richmond, Virginia; Syed Mohsin Reza, Mary Catherine Zinsner, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia; Nathaniel Patrick Lee, MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior* Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Janice Wolk Grenadier appeals the district court’s order declining to take action on her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Grenadier v. BWW Law Group, LLC,*No. 1:14-cv-00827-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 29, 2016; entered Nov. 30, 2016). We deny Grenadier’s motion for an emergency injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions aré adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
EX PARTE Jimmy Dean WALKER

1150635 (CR-14-1099)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 3, 2017

Writ of cert. quashed.
D.T., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2018

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 14, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Arthur C. Wiener, Chief Executive Officer of Galey & Lord, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June
29, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Arthur C. Wiener
--------------------------
Arthur C. Wiener
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002
Doris E. MCNULTY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. FAIRWAY MORTGAGE, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1175

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Robert S. PETERS and Bethanie Peters v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO.

1150974

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Alfredo ARAGUZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40378 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Alfredo Araguz, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Alfredo Araguz 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). Araguz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue *921for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

**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.
William A. CARPENTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-832

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
ACTIO N 

Pettiford, Marie (OST) 

SlO-110120-001 

CONTROL NO 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Dear Secretary LaHood, 

Steve & Ginny Helgeson [sghelgeson@gmail.com] 

Wednesday. January 19, 2011 1:13 PM 

LaHood, Ray (OST) 

Kurland, Susan (OST); Devany, Dennis (OST); 

Sean.pamell@alaska.gov; angerman@aptalaska.net 

Docket #0ST-1998-4899 ZiT 

V 

A ^ — 

As a 30 year resident of Wrangell in Southeast, I am very strongly in favor of Alaska Airline^eing selected by 

DOT to serve Wrangell and other southeast towns as they have done for the entire time I have been here. They 

do an excellent job of transporting passengers and air freight to our isolated communities on a daily basis and 

our economies are dependent upon their services. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Virginia Helgeson 

Wrangell, Alaska
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1425 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 

the cover over of distilled spirits taxes to the Virgin Islands and Puerto 

Rico. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2021 

Ms. PLASKETT (for herself and Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the limitation on the cover over of distilled spirits taxes 

to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON COVER OVER OF 

4 DISTILLED SPIRITS TAXES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7652 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (f) 

7 and by redesignating subsections (g), (h), and (i) as sub8 sections (f), (g), and (h), respectively. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1425 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 7652(f)(1) 

2 of such Code, as redesignated by subsection (a), is amend3 ed— 

4 (1) by striking subparagraph (B), and 

5 (2) by striking ‘‘as if—’’ and all that follows 

6 through ‘‘the use and tax’’ and inserting ‘‘as if the 

7 use and tax’’. 

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to distilled spirits brought into the 

10 United States after December 31, 2020. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Chimere CROSBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1561

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 10, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

May, Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Jeffrey HOWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1484

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.