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

No. 17-40212 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

Alejandro Mejia-Trejo, Pro Se

*349Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges;

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandro Mejia-Trejo 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). Mejia-Trejo 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 Cíe. 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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. Robert GILDNER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40180 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Robert Gildner, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The. attorney appointed to represent Robert Gildner 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). Gildner has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portion's of the record reflected therein, as well as Gild-ner’s response. 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.
Fidel LOZANO, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2543

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018

Rachael E. Bushey of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Brandon R. Christian, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1321 

KA 11-01582 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. LUPER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BARBARA J. DAVIES OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A.

DiTullio, J.), rendered June 28, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon

in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the

second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s

contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and

intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v

Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). Although County Court’s colloquy was brief,

defendant signed a detailed written waiver of the right to appeal (see

People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738), and he acknowledged to the court

that he understood that he was foregoing the right to appeal (cf.

People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267). The valid waiver encompasses

any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see Lopez,

6 NY3d at 255).

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Tracey Terrell GRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan R. WHITE; Burkamp, Case Manager; Causby, Sergeant, Lead Investigator; Barker, Unit Manager; Quinn, Sergeant; Odom, Officer; Bryan, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7722

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 24, 2017

*154Tracey Terrell Grady, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tracey Terrell Grady seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, as amended, for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012). 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 pleading deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Grady seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *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 the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.* We deny Grady’s motion to reverse the district court’s ruling. 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*

*

 We do not remand this matter to the district court, though, because the court previously afforded Grady the chance to amend his complaint. *Cf. Goode,*807 F.3d at 629-30.
Jammie SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-71

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CIComplete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Otley L. Smith III, the President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date: August 15, 2005 | /s/ Otley L. Smith III                |   |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Otley L. Smith  III                   |
|                       | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

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


         In  connection  with the Annual  Report of Natural Gas Services  Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended  December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Stephen C.
Taylor,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby certify
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Stephen C. Taylor
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Stephen C. Taylor
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


                                                         May 3, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6725

H. DEWAIN HERRING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden Broad River Correctional 

Institute,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

WILLIAM R. BYARS, JR., Director SC Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief 

District Judge. (0:11-cv-00160-MBS)

Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Mixon Griffin, LEWIS, BABCOCK & GRIFFIN, LLP, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 
2

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

H. Dewain Herring seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). 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) (2006). 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 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Herring 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 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
| 1.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company      for the periods presented. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Terry Howlett                                                           |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                            |
| Name:  | Terry      Howlett                                                              |
|   |                                                                            |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                            |
| Date:  | April      14, 2009                                                             |
#### Milton Lee GARDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. District Attorney Roy DEFRIEND; Assistant District Attorney Brody Burks; Assistant District Attorney Beth Toben, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-50937 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Milton Lee Gardner, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Milton Lee Gardner, Texas prisoner # 1913734, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (h), 1915A(b)(l), (c). He complains that the district court did not address his claim that the county jail where he was a pretrial detainee violated his constitutional right of access to the courts when it failed to provide legal resources he needed to litigate a civil protective order case brought by the defendants.

*365We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Berry v. Brady,*192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). Our standard of review of a dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim is de novo, and we apply the same standard that governs a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility,*848 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2017). A complaint fails to state a claim for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) when it does not contain sufficient factual matter which, if accepted as true, states a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Gardner’s aecess-to-courts claim rests on án indisputably meritless legal theory. *See Eason v. Thaler,*14 F.3d 8, 9 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). His underlying litigation of the civil protective order did not involve an attack on his sentence or a challenge to the conditions of his confinement. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 355, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Therefore, it was not the kind of claim for which the Constitution requires a jail to provide legal resources. *See id.; Terry v. Hubert,*609 F.3d 757, 761 (5th Cir. 2010); *Loden v. Hayes,*208 Fed.Appx. 356, 359 (5th Cir. 2006).

The district court’s dismissal counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Coleman v. Tollefson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015); *Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We remind Gardner that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
Candice Lynn WOLFSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1773

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.

Denied.

Denied.
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Docket Nos.Cottontail Solar 2, LLC
EG22-19-000Cottontail Solar 8, LLC
EG22-20-000Black Bear Alabama Solar Tenant, LLC
EG22-21-000Skipjack IA, LLC
EG22-22-000Arlington Energy Center III, LLC
EG22-23-000Meadow Lake Solar Park LLC
EG22-24-000Gruver Wind Interconnection, LLC
EG22-25-000Parkway 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
#### Richard VALENCIANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN FCI EDGEFIELD, Respondent-Appellee, and Warden Thomas, Respondent.

No. 14-7901

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 2, 2017

Decided: June 6, 2017

Richard Valenciano, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Valenciano, a former federal prisoner, has appealed the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. In the petition, he challenged his sentence as an armed career criminal, arguing that one of his predicate prior convictions was no longer a qualifying violent felony. While this appeal was pending, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted Valenciano’s authorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion based on *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, *127135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). He was resentenced and released from custody, and he is currently on supervised release. “Mootness is a jurisdictional question and thus may be raised *sna sponte*by a federal court at any stage of proceedings.” Un*ited States v.*Springer, 715 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Because Valenciano has already been granted the relief that he sought in his § 2241 petition, we conclude that the appeal is moot. *See also United States v. Surratt,*855 F.3d 218 (4th Cir. 2017) (dismissed as moot following en banc argument).

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal as moot. 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*
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 on Form 10-K of Switchboard
Incorporated (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Dean Polnerow, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (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/ Dean Polnerow
                                              -----------------
                                              Dean Polnerow
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              President
Dated: March 29, 2004
### Served: September 17 , 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on the 1 7 th of September , 2012.

Essential Air Service at

El CENTRO, CALIFORNIA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 200 8

- 0 299

NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PROPOSALS AT EL CENTRO, CALIFORNIA

By Order 2010

- 12

- 6 the Department selected SkyWest Airlines, Inc., d/b /a United Express

, to provide Essential Air Service (EAS) at El Ce ntro , California , for $ 1,852,091 annual subsidy. The

r ate is set to expire on December 31 , 2012. With the end of the contract approaching, by Order 201 2

- 8

- 18
, August 17 , 2012 , we requested proposals by September 18 , 2012

. On September 17 , 2012, Seaport Airlines, Inc., requested a two

- week extension to submit proposals
at El Centro

. We will grant the extension request. Proposals at El Centro are now due on October 2

, 2012.

Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of t his document is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.regulations.gov
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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: March 12, 2010
    /s/ Robert I. ChenRobert I. Chen President,Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
James B. BULL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0311 CASE NO.: 2D17-2459

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 27, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Case number 2D17-2459 has been classified as a nonsummary postconviction appeal. Case number 2D18-311 is a related appeal of the circuit court order denying the appointment of appellate counsel for 2D17-2459.

Appellant's notice of appeal which initiated 2D18-311 and appellant's initial brief docketed in 2D18-311 on February 26, 2018, are transferred to 2D17-2459 and treated as a motion to review the circuit court order denying appointment of appellate counsel.

The record transmitted by the Hillsborough County Clerk of the Circuit Court for 2D18-311 is transferred to 2D17-2459 and treated as an appendix to the motion to review.

Accordingly, 2D18-311 is dismissed as duplicative of case number 2D17-2459, which remains pending.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.