alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert D. STEARNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING; The Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the certificate holders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2007-OAS, mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2007-OA8 (“Bony”), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1266

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

Robert D. Stearns, Appellant Pro Se. J.P. McGuire Boyd, Jr., WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, .James Robert Germano, WILLIAMS MULLEN, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert D. Stearns appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Stearns’ civil action for failure to state a claim. In its dispositive order, the district court explained that it granted the motion to dismiss for the reasons expressed at the motion hearing, but the record does not contain a transcript of that hearing. An appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c). An appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis is entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Stearns has waived review of the issues on appeal that depend upon the transcript to show error. *See generally*Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); *Keller v. Prince George’s Cty.,*827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987) . As no error appears on the record before us, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Marcus MALONE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40151 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 21, 2017

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

Gena Blount Bunn, Esq., Holmes *&*Moore, P.L.L.C., Longview, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James Marcus Malone appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to import methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963; importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a); conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute', in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, he argues that the district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on deliberate ignorance because the evidence did not raise an inference of willful blindness to the illegal activities. Therefore, Malone contends that the instruction allowed the jury to convict on a lesser standard than knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.

This court reviews challenges to jury instructions for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Rios,*636 F.3d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 2011). In reviewing a district court’s deliberate ignorance instruction, "this court considers the evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Government, *United States v. Nguyen,*493 F.3d 613, 619 (5th Cir. 2007), and it takes into account the totality of the evidence, *United States v. Lara-Velasquez,*919 F.2d 946, 952 (5th Cir. 1990). This court will uphold a deliberate ignorance instruction if it is supported by sufficient *161evidence. *See Lara-Velasquez,*919 F.2d at 951. An error in giving the instruction is harmless if substantial evidence showing actual knowledge of criminal conduct was adduced at trial. *United States v. McElwee,*646 F.3d 328, 341 (5th Cir. 2011).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the deliberate ignorance instruction was proper. *See Nguyen,*493 F.3d at 619. The evidence presented at trial indicates that Malone was subjectively aware of a high probability of illegal conduct and that he purposely avoided learning of the illegal conduct. *See id.*Even if the district court abused its discretion by giving the instruction, any error was harmless because the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to show Malone’s actual knowledge of the criminal activity. *See McElwee,*646 F.3d at 341.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Arthur FELLNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1715

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Noelle YOUNG, a/k/a Noelle Hobbs, a/k/a Noelle Cooper, a/k/a Noelle Anmari Young, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Appellee.

No. 4D17-1857

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 31, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary M. Morrow, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 657]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullin, J.), rendered January 22, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10972 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES HOWARD HANEY, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:92-CR-061-A

- - - - - - - - - - February 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Howard Haney has moved for a determination of the status of his case, which raises his ultimate issue for appeal, whether the district court had jurisdiction to convict him for violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court had proper jurisdiction to consider Haney's offense. See United States v. Davis , 666 F.2d 195, 199 (5th Cir. 1992); see also 28 U.S.C. § 124(a)(1). Haney's motions for determination of status, for leave to apply for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court, and for an extension of time to file an appellate brief are DENIED.No. 95-10972 -2- Haney's appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. 42.2. Haney is WARNED that the filing of frivolous appeals in the future will result in the imposition of sanctions. See Moody v. Baker , 857 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 488 U.S. 985 (1988).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Biology of Development and Aging Integrated Review Group; Developmental Therapeutics Study Section, February 24-25, 2022, 9:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 19, 2022, 87 FR 2877, FR DOC 2022-00962.                

                    This meeting is being amended to change the Contact Person from Nicholas J. Donato to Lambratu Rahman Sesay, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 804-H, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 905-8294,                     *bree.rahmansesay@nih.gov.*                     The meeting dates, times, and meeting location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.                

Dated: February 10, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03310 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

April 13, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00815

- CR

Chace WILKINSON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 451st Judicial Di str ict Court, Kendall County, Texas Trial Court No. 6087 Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The clerk’s record was due on March 6, 2020. After we granted the Kendall County
District Clerk’s first motion for extension of time to file the clerk’s record, the record was due on April 6, 2020. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c). After the extended due date, the district clerk filed a second request for an extension of time to file the record un til May 6, 2020.

The clerk’s request is GRANTED. The clerk’s record is due to be filed with this court by May 6, 2020. See id.

_________________________________ Patr icia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of April, 2020

.

_________________________________ __ Michael A . Cruz

, Clerk of Court
John CANNADAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2227

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,613,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               49,847,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,120,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,241,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            61,801,000
<PP&E>                                      27,924,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,971,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              88,947,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,308,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       121,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  68,518,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                88,947,000
<SALES>                                     67,171,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            67,171,000
<CGS>                                       52,183,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,545,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,199,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,567,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,001,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,566,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,566,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13



</TABLE>
Kevin JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2896

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Sr., a/k/a Bernard Willis, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6537

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Gibson, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record arid agree that Gibson was not entitled to relief under Amendment 782. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. *See United States v. Gibson,*No. 8:94-cr-00454-PJM-2, 2017 WL 1301514 (D. Md. Apr. 7, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the *171facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03425]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cottontail Solar 2, LLC......................  EG22-19-000
Cottontail Solar 8, LLC......................  EG22-20-000
Black Bear Alabama Solar Tenant, LLC.........  EG22-21-000
Skipjack IA, LLC.............................  EG22-22-000
Arlington Energy Center III, LLC.............  EG22-23-000
Meadow Lake Solar Park LLC...................  EG22-24-000
Gruver Wind Interconnection, LLC.............  EG22-25-000
Parkway Generation Essex, LLC................  EG22-26-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of January 2022, the status of 
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became 
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) 
(2021).

    Dated: February 11, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03425 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
GLOBAL HOOKAH DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5200

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 3, 2018

Gerald J. Donnini, II, Jospeh C. Moffa, and James F. McAuley of Moffa, Sutton, & Donnini, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Elizabeth Teegen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Global Hookah Distributors, Inc., appeals from a final order of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which adopted an administrative law judge's recommended order addressing wholesale tax assessments on what are called "other tobacco products," or "OTP." The order denied relief on Global Hookah's challenge to the Department's policy statement concerning the use of a "best available information" process as applied to OTP, which is not challenged on appeal. Global Hookah, however, challenges its alternative claim, which is that the Department's inclusion of federal excise taxes, shipping costs, and other related items was an unpromulgated rule for which they are entitled to relief. The administrative law judge refused to consider this claim, effectively ruling against Global Hookah, despite the fact the claim had been successful in a parallel case before the same administrative law judge. *See**Fla. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. v. Fla. Bee Distribution, Inc.* , 205 So.3d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (per curiam affirmance in favor of Florida Bee).

Global Hookah claims it has the right to assert a *Florida Bee* theory as well; it says that the refusal to hear its claim-because a stay had been entered in *Florida Bee* pending appeal-was improper. Under the circumstances presented, we agree that Global Hookah should have been allowed to have its similar claim adjudicated on the merits. The refusal to adjudicate Global Hookah's claim amounts to a denial of due process because it precludes Global Hookah from potentially prevailing on a valid theory of liability upon which a similarly-situated litigant (Florida Bee) prevailed. To the extent that Global Hookah can show injury arising from the application of an agency policy to its operations, enforced via an invalid agency rule, it should be entitled to do so. We therefore reverse and remand with directions that Global Hookah's claim based on that in *Florida Bee* be reinstated.

REVERSED and REMANDED .

Lewis, Makar, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1509 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1509

 To repeal portions of a regulation issued by the State Superintendent 
   of Education of the District of Columbia that require child care 
workers to have a degree, a certificate, or a minimum number of credit 
             hours from an institution of higher education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2021

   Ms. Mace introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal portions of a regulation issued by the State Superintendent 
   of Education of the District of Columbia that require child care 
workers to have a degree, a certificate, or a minimum number of credit 
             hours from an institution of higher education.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DC REGULATIONS REGARDING HIGHER EDUCATION 
              QUALIFICATIONS OF CHILD CARE WORKERS.

     Any provision of Chapter 1 of Subtitle A of Title 5 of the 
District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, as added by the final 
rulemaking of the State Superintendent of Education of the District of 
Columbia issued on December 7, 2016, that requires a staff member of a 
child development facility to have a degree, a certificate, or a 
minimum number of credit hours from an institution of higher education, 
including sections 164.1, 165.1, 166.1(a), 170.2(a), 173.3, 174.2(a), 
and 174.2(b), shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2466
LUCY JENKAA BADOH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A76-903-217) Submitted: August 22, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sopo Ngwa, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Michele Y. F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lucy Jenkaa Badoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The order in question affirmed a ruling of the immigration judge denying Badoh’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in affirming the immigration judge’s decision. See INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Susan White DOWLING, Former Wife, Appellant, v. Robert Jason DOWLING, Former Husband, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1798

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Calvin BRIDGES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-707

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

Calvin Bridges, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Ciklin, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Ray BUIE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6401

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Daniel Ray Buie, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, 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:

Daniel Ray Buie pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking offense. The district court sentenced him to 192 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the judgment. *United States v. Buie,*421 Fed.Appx. 281 (4th Cir. 2011) (No. 10-4740). Buie filed a second notice of appeal of the criminal judgment. Because we have previously affirmed this criminal judgment, we dismiss the appeal *253as duplicative and untimely. 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*