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

No. 17-6460

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

*135Leverne Silver, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leverne Silver filed a notice of appeal after the Federal Public Defender moved to withdraw from representation in Silver’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that both Silver’s § 2255 motion, and the Government’s motion to dismiss, remain pending in the district court. Because there is no order from which Silver may appeal, we dismiss this 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*
February 2, 2010

MEMORANDUM TO: Air Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2005 - 0161 SUBJECT: Instructions for Accessing the Forest and Agricultural Sector

Optimization Model (FASOM) and the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI - CARD ) Models as Used for t he Renewable Fuels Standard Final Rulemaking T o provide additional information on the agricultural economic models used in the Renewable Fuels Standard ( RFS2 ) final rulemaking ( FRM ) , this memo provides instructions on how to access the FAPRI
- CARD model s a s modified by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University , as well as the FASOM model. The FAPRI
- CARD model s can be accessed via the docket under the name “ FAPRI
CARD Model for RFS2 Final Rulemaking .” The FASOM model can also be accessed, free of charge, but subject to customary use restrictions to protect the proprietary nature of the model. To access the FASOM model, please contact: Jefferson Cole Transportation Climate Division Environmental Protection Agency 120 0 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Room 6510Z, Mail Code: 6401A Phone: ( 202 ) 564
- 1283 Fax: (202) 564
- 1686 Email: cole.jefferson@epa.gov
Fernandito CARPIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3793

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leonard RONDEAU, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-2183

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Filed: November 22, 2016

Kevin Koliner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, Jay P. Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of South Dakota, Pierre, SD, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Leonard Rondeau, Pro Se.

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Leonard G. Rondeau appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to engaging in sexual contact with a child. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal.

Rondeau was sentenced to a term of 180 months in prison with 3 years of supervised release, to run'consecutively to sentences that he was already , serving in Nebraska state prison for other offenses. He argues that the federal sentence should run concurrently with the state sentences. Rondeau’s appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration of his claim. *See United States v. Scott,*627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); *United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); *see also*18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless court orders that terms are to run concurrently); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) (court may run state and federal sentences concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively in order to achieve reasonable punishment). An independent review of the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

The appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
Richard SHEPPARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-829

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 20, 2018.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jonathan Greenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, FERNANDEZ, and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Vennisee v. State*, 235 So.3d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nexity Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated September 26, 2007



By:

/s/ Greg L. LeeGreg L. LeeChairman and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6954

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Richard C. Erwin,

Senior District Judge. (CR-91-179, CA-93-584)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Marquis Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion and denying his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error in the denial of § 2255 relief. Nor do we

find an abuse of discretion in the court's denial of Appellant's

motions for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Fleming, Nos. CR-91-

179; CA-93-584 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 1995; May 2, 1995; May 11, 1995).

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.

AFFIRMED
EX PARTE A.L.M.

(In re: H.R.G. v. A.L.M.)

2160704

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1386 

To require retailers who offer products for purchase through a website to 

disclose on such website the country of origin for each product offered 

for sale. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2021 

Mr. VAN DREW introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require retailers who offer products for purchase through 

a website to disclose on such website the country of 

origin for each product offered for sale. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Country of Origin La5 beling Requirement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS 

7 FOR PRODUCTS SOLD ON RETAIL WEBSITES. 

8 (a) DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.—Any person that 

9 operates an Internet website (including a mobile applicaVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:11 Mar 23, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1386.IH H1386

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1386 IH

1 tion) and that sells or offers for sale any product through 

2 such website or application, shall disclose on such website 

3 or application, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the 

4 country in which such product was manufactured or fi5 nally assembled. 

6 (b) EXCLUSION.—The requirements in subsection (a) 

7 shall not be construed to apply to any individual who uses 

8 a website operated by another person to sell or offer for 

9 sale any good or product. 

10 SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMIS11 SION. 

12 (a) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.— 

13 A violation of section 1(a) shall be treated as a violation 

14 of a regulation under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal 

15 Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regard16 ing unfair or deceptive acts or practices. 

17 (b) POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.—The Commission 

18 shall enforce section 1(a) in the same manner, by the same 

19 means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties 

20 as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Fed21 eral Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were 

22 incorporated into and made a part of this Act. Any person 

23 who violates such section shall be subject to the penalties 

24 and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in 

25 the Federal Trade Commission Act. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1386 IH

1 (c) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.—Nothing in this Act 

2 shall be construed in any way to limit or affect the author3 ity of the Commission under any other provision of law. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 1404

_____________________________
T ONY D ANIELS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Linda F. McCallum , Judge

. October 17, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J.
, and M AKAR and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Tony Daniels, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus REYES-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50061 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

Jesus Reyes-Chavez, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Reyes-Chavez has *903moved 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Reyes-Chavez 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.

3⁄8

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *903published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10783 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DAVID VALDEZ, JR.

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17

- CR

- 463

- 1

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David Valdez, Jr.,

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Valdez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently
developed to allo w us to make a fair evaluation of Valdez ’s claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 13, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10783 Document: 00515198135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2019No. 18

- 10783

2 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 Valdez ’ 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 DISMISSE D.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-10783 Document: 00515198135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2019
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 29, 2019

b1021

Order 

Clerk

October 29, 2019

159091

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159091

COA: 340861 

Oakland CC: 2017-261695-FH

KEVIN SEAN ERNST,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Jesus LOPEZ-TREVINO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40507 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 Jesus Lopez-Trevino, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Jesus Lopez-Trevino *926has 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). Lopez-Trevino has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Lopez-Trevino’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 Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *926published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          55,104
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         191,406
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 4,473
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     32,355
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,868,771
<ALLOWANCE>                                     32,044
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,432,604
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,244,409
<SHORT-TERM>                                   483,756
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            122,311
<LONG-TERM>                                    289,803
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       147,381
<OTHER-SE>                                     124,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,432,604
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                150,469
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               16,247
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,141
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               168,857
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              54,155
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,145
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           73,712
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   18,165
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (403)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 94,843
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 78,051
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      39,694
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,995)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,699
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.45
<LOANS-NON>                                     65,006
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                19,999
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 (12,671)
<RECOVERIES>                                       654
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               32,044
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            32,044
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6244 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1535 East Los Ebanos Boulevard in Brownsville, Texas, as the ‘‘1st 

Lieutenant Andres Zermeno Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2023 

Mr. VICENTE GONZALEZ of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1535 East Los Ebanos Boulevard in Brownsville, Texas, as the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres Zermeno 

Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1ST LIEUTENANT ANDRES ZERMENO POST OF4 FICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1535 East Los Ebanos Boule7 vard in Brownsville, Texas, shall be known and designated 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6244 IH

1 as the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres Zermeno Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres 

7 Zermeno Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
J.S., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-71

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018.

J.S., a juvenile, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chad Edward NOZISKA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30114

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Katherine Ruth Stack, Stack & Kottke, PLLC, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Chad Edward Noziska appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Noziska contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The record makes clear that the district court imposed Nóziska’s sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Noziska is, therefore, ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano,*855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.