alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Gro **~~J.~** Ov-Q.-f 12o r -- - **~** -- - - - -- f· 1\ r! 100 !**~At** I **: :~l** 

j , ... i

'\ I II i t. 8i 80 **~pv.., ~~**  I 'I I \ **~** l & :: .r-- .f**a~ ~**  II**~ &~**  vr " , ... ·I 1 1 , 1l , **~** M ,..; ' I f I I 60 **/~-w.J ~**  .**~** I

r -.J 'l/ I**~** I

I .**~"\** ;\ J **~** I i I **,,hl~\ ·w,J~~** **~.** r r! \ **~** ( **~ ~**  ' /

40 ,r# f \ ; 1 j · · I l:ll •

,. t.l I i I I

\ ... • **~** I I ,. I'

\", J ... I **~** II 20 **~~** i, **~**

,; ' ... **~ ~**  !' **~**

... **~~~**
0 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Transmittance I Wavenumber (cm-1) Paged Y-Zoom SCROLL File# 1 = 14-0C-62 8126/14 6 : 40AM Res=4 cm-1 14-0C-FP - 062
Luc PIERRE-CHARLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1248

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 1:57 PM 

To: Richard Parker 

Cc: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Creevy Jim; Cohen Dan; Carlos Siquieros; Brenda Edwards; Eduardo 

Robles; Daniel Young; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce Smith; Caitlin 

Johnson; Gaytan Carlos; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Clark Silcox; Eric 

Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Fernstrom Gary; Coulter Greg; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James 

Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Raba Jim; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Mauer Joanna; Cymbalsky 

John; John Rossetti; Coughlin Katie; Winder Ken; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matt Miller; Matthew Nardotti; 

Waltner Meg; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; 

Polinski Raymond; Kumar Puesh; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Thomas Patzner; Robert 

van Buskirk; Roy Robin; Ryan Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Chad Kennedy; Steve 

Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; Vijay Tendulkar 

Subject: MVLF and LV Groups 

I'd like to reconsider my response to John Cymbalsky, at the end of the LV meeting, regarding 

showing the cost per kWh saved (based on the incremental delivered transformer cost and the 

incremental energy savings, compared to dEL0). I believe John is correct and the cost per kWh 

SHOULD be shown for each dEL/TSL/CSL for the life of the transformer. This is simply the 

ratio of the 30 year stream of annual kWh savings (discounted at 3% and 7%) to the incremental 

delivered transformer cost. Showing this in all groups will provide a common comparison for all 

transformers as well as the a common reference for other energy savings programs in DOE's 

portfolios as well as the efficiency portfolios of the other participants. 

I, of course, remain supportive of Tom Panzer's recommendation for a TSL basis, also discussed 

at that meeting. 

Regards,

Robert A. Berman, Principal

Berman Economics

www.BermanEconomics.com

1915 Grand Court

Vienna, VA 22182

703‐281‐0490

703‐655‐8398 (cell)

BermanEconomics@gmail.com
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julio Alejandro ARIAS-BARRON, also known as Julio Alejandro Arias Barron, also known as Julio Arias-Barron, also known as Alejandro Gomez-Barron, also known as Julio Alejandro Arias, also known as Alejandro Arias, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20162 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

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

Julio Alejandro Arias-Barron, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Julio Alejandro Arias-Barron has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Arias-Barron has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs 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.
Karriem MCDOWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3442

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 9, 2018

Karriem McDowell, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joaquin Irwin FOY Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1088

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 3, 2017

Filed: August 10, 2017

Cynthia Jean Hyde, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Springfield, MO, Joseph T. McGuire, Attorney Advisor, Christina Leigh Scofield, U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joaquin Irwin Foy, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joaquin Foy was civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 in 2007, and he appeals from the judgment of the District Court,1 entered after a hearing, denying his motion for conditional discharge under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h). We conclude that the District Court did not clearly err in denying the motion. See United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1025, 124 S.Ct. 587, 157 L.Ed.2d 445 (2003). The mental health experts associated with the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, where Foy is currently confined, testified that Foy’s unconditional discharge would be dangerous in light of his longstanding, severe mental illness and his lack of insight; his recent history of threatening violence;, and his statements that he did not wish to be released with conditions and would not take prescribed medication if released without conditions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
EX PARTE Tommy BRYANT

1160208 (2150352)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
Darren L. BLACK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-3121

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2018

Darren L. Black, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DENIED.

Lewis, Kelsey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-5484
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT HARRIS, a/k/a Junebug, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-10) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 29, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jane Charnock, CHARNOCK & CHARNOCK, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Albert Harris pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1995), and received a sentence of 87 months imprisonment. He contends on appeal that thedistrict court erred in finding that he had not accepted responsibility for his offense. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 3E1.1 (Nov. 1994). Finding no error, we affirm the sentence. Following his guilty plea, Harris was released on bond. He subsequently tested positive on three occasions for cocaine use. His bond was revoked. At sentencing, the district court determined that Harris's continued criminal conduct was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. The court's factual finding was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Kidd , 12 F.3d 30, 34 (4th Cir. 1993) (continued criminal conduct may be basis for denial of adjustment), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 3705 (U.S. Apr. 25, 1994) (No. 93-8489). Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the district court is affirmed. 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juvenal ABARCA-PARRA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10542 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/02/2016

Michelle Thresher Taylor, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Daniel George, Donald L. Hansen, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, Dionja Dyer, Federal Public Defend*752er’s Office, Tampa, FL, Juvenal Abarca-Parra, Cibola County Correctional Institution—Inmate Legal Mail, Milan, NM, for Defendant-Appellant

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Langs, appointed counsel for Juvenal Abarca-Parra in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Abarca-Parra’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-7077

MELODY SIMPSON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secret ary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Thomas J. Reed , Widener University School of Law, of Wilmington, Delaware, argued for claimant-appellant.

Meredyth D. Cohen , Trial Attorney, Commercial Liti gation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas , Assistant Attorney General,

Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr. , Assistant Director. Of counsel

on the brief were Michael J. Timinski , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Martie S.

Adelman , Attorney, Office of the General Co unsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Appealed from: United States Cour t of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Judge Bruce E. KasoldNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-7077

MELODY SIMPSON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretar y of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States C ourt of Appeals for Veterans Claims

in CASE NO(S) 06-0552.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (BRYSON, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges .)

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R.36

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: _October 10, 2008 __ / s / Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Jody HENDERSON v. STATE

CR-16-0668

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Antonio M. STINYARD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2429

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 09, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Dftt'd^^r- ia[<\f, - IZ ^ 

Gogebic-Iron County Airport 

CiOGhBIC-lRON AIRI'ORl 

Joseph BonoveL:, Cftairman 

Robert Berg Jim Oliver 

LeRoy Kangas Brian Tarro 

Bob Monn John Wiila 

Paul Multard Donna Scorse 

E556 0 Airport Roa d 

.y.^lAR P Ironwood, Michigan 4993 8 

Phone 906-932-3121 

FAX 906-932-4401 

e-mail' 

iwdairplaneigjflylromironw'ood com 

Duane R. DuRay. Manager 

Mindy Prenderville, Admin Asst 

July 15.2010 

Dennis Devany 

Chief. F.s.scntial Air Sen ice Division. X-5.^ 

Office ot Aviation Analysis 

Departnicnl ol" Transportation 

400 Seventh Strect.S \V. 

Washington. DC 

Dear Mr. DcVany. 

On July 15, 2010. the Gogebic-Iron County Airport Board held a .special meeting to 

address the HAS proposals. The public was invited to the meeting to pro\ idc opinions. 

concerns, and ideas regarding the proposals submitted to the DOT from Charter Air 

Transport, Inc. and Sovereign Air. Inc. 

Both of the proposals were reviewed looking at the options that would provide the most 

benefit to our community and which company displays the best chance of becoming a 

successful operator. 

ArtcT a complete review of the proposals and the current activity displayed from both of 

the bidders, the Gogebic- Iron County Airport Board has cast a unanimous vote if favor 

of the Charter Air Transport proposal utilizing Milwaukee as the hub. 

Sincerely. 

Duane DuRav ane 

Airport Manage;
Lee Ann JACKSON, executrix of the estate of Wayne Allen Russell, Jr., deceased v. FIRST UNITED SECURITY BANK

2160183

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cross-Appeal - Affirmed.
#### Nathaniel CALDWELL, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Roberto ROBERTS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6271

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 30, 2017

Nathaniel Caldwell, III, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Caldwell, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We order a limited remand.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. *2704(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). An inmate’s notice of appeal is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).

The district court’s order denying Caldwell’s motion for reconsideration was dated October 14, 2016 and entered on October 17, 2016. On February 21, 2017, this court received a letter from Caldwell claiming that he had timely filed his notice of appeal on November 7, 2016 by giving it to prison authorities for mailing on that date. He also provided some evidence in support of the assertion. However, that notice of appeal does not appear in the district court’s docket. Because the letter evidenced an intent to appeal, we construed it as a notice of appeal and forwarded it to the district court for filing.

We now remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Caldwell filed a timely notice of appeal under Rule 4(c)(1). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED*
#### Theodoor W. JANSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee FOR MORGAN STANLEY MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2005-11AR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15632

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 14, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed March 16, 2017

*577Theodoor W. Janson, Pro Se

Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Attorney, Laszlo Ladi, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, America’s Servicing Company, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Matthew B. Learned, Esquire, Attorney, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Quality Loan Service Corp,

Before: FERNANDEZ, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

1. We affirm the district court’s order dismissing this action on the basis of claim preclusion. Theodoor Janson seeks to vindicate the same primary right in this action as in his prior state court action: the right to be free from a wrongful foreclosure. *See Gillies v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,*7 Cal.App.5th 907, 213 Cal.Rptr.3d 210, 216 (2017). Because the prior action resulted in a final judgment on the merits between Janson and the same defendants or their privies, that judgment bars this action. *See Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,*48 Cal.4th 788, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, 230 P.3d 342, 348 (2010). That Janson challenges the foreclosure of his property on new legal grounds is irrelevant to the claim preclusion analysis. The prior action precludes all future claims with respect to the alleged violation of the same primary right that could have been raised in the original action. *See Busick v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.,*7 Cal.3d 967, 104 Cal.Rptr. 42, 500 P.2d 1386, 1392 (1972). Janson has failed to identify any legitimate reason why he could not have raised this action’s claims in his prior action.

2. It was within the district court’s discretion to deny Janson leave to amend his complaint. Amendment would be futile here because Janson has not identified any new facts that he could allege that would save this action from his prior action’s preclusive effect.

The defendants’ motion for judicial notice, filed December 9, 2015, is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Peter R. HAMER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-4828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Jacob ALVESTAD v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO.

1150975

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Affirmed.
Ricky Joe DOUGLAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3232

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
STATE EX REL. Harold BONNEY v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0192

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. In addition, his insufficient evidence claim is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1743

LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORINDA GREENE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00072-H)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his complaint in 

which he sought to appeal the state court’s denial of his 

request to appeal his North Carolina criminal conviction. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. See District of Columbia Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Accordingly, we 

deny Richardson’s motion for relief and affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Richardson v. Greene, No. 5:11-

cv-00072-H (E.D.N.C. July 6, 2011). 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