alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gember Alberto ALFARO-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51049 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 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

Gember Alberto Alfaro-Romero, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gember Alberto Alfaro-Romero 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). Alfaro-Romero 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 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ismael ESPARZA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41476 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 2, 2017

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

Kimberly S. Keller, Keller Stolarczyk P.L.L.C., Boerne, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ismael Esparza appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to transport unlawful aliens within the United States. He renews his preserved challenge to the district court’s application of a two-level adjustment to his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c) for his role as “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in the offense. “Whether a defendant exercised an aggravating role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor ... is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error.” *United States v. Guzman-Reyes,*853 F.3d 260, 265 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the entire record.” *United States v. Perez,*217 F.3d 323, 331 (5th Cir. 2000).

The presentence investigation report (PSR), which Esparza failed to rebut, establishes that he was identified as the leader of the alien-smuggling organization by Jose Maria Lozano, a co-conspirator. The PSR recited details corroborative of Es-parza’s management or supervision of Lo-zano, including directing Lozano to take responsibility for a fatal car accident and to conceal Esparza’s involvement. We are not persuaded by Esparza’s contention that the facts in the PSR were too conclu-sory to support the offense-level adjustment or that the district court’s finding was implausible in light of the entire record. *Perez,*217 F.3d at 331. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by applying the § 3Bl.l(c) adjustment. *See Guzman-Reyes,*853 F.3d at 265.

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.
*

 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11412

Summary Calendar

SONDRA L. COLLINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ASMARA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;

NHP FOUNDATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV-1520-G)

February 18, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sondra L. Collins appeals an adverse summary judgment in her Fair Housing

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(d), action against Asmara Limited Partnership and NHP
2

Foundation, owner-operator of Wellington Place Apartments, Dallas, Texas. Our

review of the record and briefs of the parties persuadesthat the district court did not

err in its entry of judgment, and on the basis of the facts detailed, authorities cited,

and analysis made by the district court in its comprehensive Memorandum Order

rendered and filed on October 11, 1996, we AFFIRM.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02997]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket No.: ED-2022-SCC-0011]


Supplemental Support Under the American Rescue Plan (SSARP) 
Application; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of 
Education (ED).

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

    On February 8, 2022, the U.S. Department of Education published a 
correction notice in the Federal Register (Vol. 87, No 26, Page 7163, 
Column 2) seeking to correct the public comment period closing date for 
an information collection entitled, ``Supplemental Support under the 
American Rescue Plan (SSARP) Application.'' The Docket Number for the 
correction (ED-2020-SCC-0011), is incorrect, and the correct Docket 
Number is ED-2022-SCC-0011.
    The PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of 
the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 
Development, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Dated: February 8, 2022.
Kate Mullan,
PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance Office of the 
Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 
Development.
[FR Doc. 2022-02997 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
D'Angelo Lavelle DIXON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2776

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kyle M. GOVINDASAMY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40062 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 20, 2017

Marisa J. Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kyle M. Govindasamy, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kyle M. Govindasamy 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). Govin-dasamy has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Govindasamy’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Govindasamy’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.
STATE of Louisiana v. Misty EIERMANN

NO. 2017-KO-1398

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Abviva, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Amended Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-KSB/A") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  July 28, 2008   /s/ Douglas Lane ---------------------- Douglas Lane Chief Executive Officer And Principal Accounting Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime BECERRA-PULIDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50385

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 25, 2017

Steven Lee, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA

James Fife, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Becerra-Pulido appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

*773Becerra-Pulido contends that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.C. § 3B1.2(b). After Becerra-Pulido was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline. The Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal. *See United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).

The Amendment clarified that, in assessing whether a defendant should receive a minor role adjustment, the court should compare him to the other participants in the crime, rather than to a hypothetical average participant. *See*U.S.S.G. App. C Amend. 794; *Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523. In addition, the Amendment clarified that “[t]he fact that a defendant performs an essential or indispensable role in the criminal activity is not determinative.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Finally, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. *See id.*Because we cannot determine from the record whether the district court followed the guidance of the Amendment’s clarifying language and considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Becerra-Pulido’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the Amendment. *See Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523-24.

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### IN RE: Gary Allen WASHINGTON; Michelle Anne Washington, Debtors, Gary Allen Washington; Michelle Anne Washington, Debtors-Appellants, v. South Carolina Community Bank; Federal National Mortgage Association, Creditors-Appellees, US Trustee, Trustee-Appellee.

No. 16-2307

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Alexander B. Wathen, Houston, Texas, for Appellants. Ramona D. Elliott, Deputy Director/General Counsel, P. Matthew Sut-ko, Associate General Counsel, Wendy Cox, Trial Attorney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Judy A. Robbins, United States Trustee, John Timothy Stack, Assistant United States Trustee, Linda Barr, Trial Attorney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Columbia, South Carolina; Carmen V. Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Travis Emil Menk, BROCK *&*SCOTT, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Allen Washington and Michelle Anne Washington appeal from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying their second motion for reconsideration of the order granting relief from the automatic stay, denying their request for an extension of time to amend and confirm their plan of reorganization, and dismissing their Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. We have reviewed the record provided on appeal and the arguments of the parties, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Washington v. South Carolina Comm. Bank,*No. 3:16-cv-00128-CMC (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 2016). 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. Brenda Elizabeth LONGORIA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50230 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

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

Brenda Elizabeth Longoria, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Brenda Elizabeth Longoria 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). Longoria 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 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 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.
Michael HASPEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3475

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 16, 2018]

Michael Haspel, Bowling Green, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Kuntz, J.

Michael Haspel, proceeding pro se, appeals the court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. The underlying facts are discussed in our opinion affirming his convictions. *See**Haspel v. State* , 164 So.3d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

In his motion for post-conviction relief, Haspel raised four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) failure to call witnesses; (2) advising to reject plea offer; (3) failure to request lesser-included offense jury instruction; and (4) advising against testifying. Haspel also argued cumulative error. The court denied the motion, and the record shows that his claims lack merit. Haspel told the court he did not want to call any additional witnesses; the State did not make a plea offer; counsel *did* request the jury instruction; and Haspel told the trial court it was his decision not to testify. Thus, as to those five claims, we affirm.

That said, in his brief on appeal, Haspel states that he filed an amended motion raising supplemental claims. Based on this assertion, we ordered the State to show cause why the court's order should not be reversed to allow the court to address the two claims raised in his supplemental motion. In response, the State asserts Haspel fails to establish the supplemental motion and claims exist. But Haspel has now done so. In reply to the State's response, Haspel filed a copy of his supplemental motion which bears a stamp from the prison mail system of May 19, 2016, and his supplemental motion is considered filed on that date. *Johnson v. State* , 969 So.2d 402, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ("[U]nder the 'mailbox rule,' a prisoner's pleading is deemed filed the date that it is placed in the hands of prison officials."); *see also**Earls v. State* , 958 So.2d 1153, 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Of course, the filing of an amended motion must be authorized and timely. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(e) provides that a motion may be amended at any time before the court rules on the motion or orders the state to respond. Here, the circuit court did not order the State to respond to Haspel's original motion until May 24, 2016. So Haspel submitted his supplemental motion days before the court ordered the State to respond to his original motion. Thus, his supplemental motion was both authorized and timely.

*6The court's order is affirmed in part and reversed in part. We affirm the order to the extent that it denied the claims raised in Haspel's May 10, 2016, motion for post-conviction relief. The court's order, however, is reversed for failing to address the claims raised in Haspel's May 19, 2016, supplemental motion.1 The case is remanded for further proceedings limited to the issues raised in Haspel's May 19, 2016, supplemental motion.

*Affirmed in part, reversed in part.*

WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

1

Our review of the record indicates the court was not aware the supplemental motion had been filed.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Nettel Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Nguyen, President and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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.

/s/ Michael Nguyen Michael NguyenPresident and Chief Financial Officer September 2, 2008



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 Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report of Shumate Industries,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew C. Flemming, Chief Financial 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 the
      Company.





/s/ Matthew C. FlemmingMatthew
      C. Flemming, Chief Financial OfficerDecember
      19, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

GREGORY THOMAS,

Petitioner

v.

SECRETARY OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 140 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of February , 2020, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the “Petition for Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 3307 Petition to the Kings [sic] Bench” is DENIED.
#### Michael A. BREYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain TOLTH, Defendant-Appellee, and Every Other Officer, involved in Disciplinary 112-N-113 on DVD Record, Defendants.

No. 17-6474

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Breyan appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure follow the court’s earlier order that he needed to bring his case into the proper form. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the district court identified deficiencies that Breyan may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Breyan seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Breyan to amend his complaint. *Goode,*807 F.3d at 630. 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 AND REMANDED*
Tajhon WILSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1550

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 12, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that the above styled appeal is hereby dismissed pursuant to *Logan v. State*, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003), and as duplicative of case no. 3D17-1997.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ., concur.