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

No. 15-30218

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*255Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Joseph E. Thaggard, 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

Anthony R. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders.of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, 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). Bestoris request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Elaine Beston appeals from the district court’s order granting in part her 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.

The district court reduced Bestoris sentence from 192 to 180 months. Beston contends that she is entitled to a further sentence reduction. The record reflects, however, that Beston was ineligible for a reduction because her 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). Nevertheless, we.will not enlarge Bestoris sentence because “a defendant who appeals but faces no cross-appeal can proceed anticipating that the appellate court will not enlarge [her] sentence.” *Greenlaw v. United States,*554 U.S. 237, 252, 128 S.Ct. 2559, 171 L.Ed.2d 399 (2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rockford J. RAHMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2434

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 6, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Larry Brandon MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy S. MULL, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, individually and in his official capacity; George T. Solomon, Director of N.C.D.P.S., D.A.C., individually and in their official capacity; Peck Taylor, Assistant Superintendent of Custody and Operations and Acting Superintendent at A.M.C.I., individually and in their official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7650

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Larry Brandon Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Brandon Moore appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. *259§ 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Moore’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Moore v. Mull,*No. 1:16-cv-00249-FDW, 2016 WL 8711523 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 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*
**Exhibit 31.01**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Michael H. Carrel, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Zamba Corporation;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I, are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | August 13,  2004                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel            |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Antonio Lavars DAVIDSON v. STATE

CR-16-0326

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
K.T., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2697

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018.

K.T., a juvenile, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*Fla. Stat. § 810.07(2) (2016) ; *Irvin v. State*, 590 So.2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Melvin MURPHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3949

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. Westley Kayeon KENNEDY, a.k.a. K.K., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10780 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed (February 2, 2017)

James C. Stuchell, R. Brian Tanner,Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., James D. Durham, Brian T. Rafferty, Jennifer G. Solari, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ricardo Bascuas, University of Miami School of Law, CORAL GABLES, FL, Westley Kayeon Kennedy, USP Coleman I—Inmate Legal Mail, Coleman, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal is GRANTED, in part, as to Kennedy’s argument that his plea agreement is procedurally unconscionable. *See United States v. Puentes-Hurtado,*794 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2015) (noting that a conviction appeal waiver will be enforced if the plea agreement is voluntary and taken in compliance with Rule 11). The government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Kennedy’s remaining argument—that his guilty plea was involuntary because his counsel had a conflict of interest—because it is not barred by his guilty plea or the conviction appeal waiver in his plea agreement. *See id.*at 1281, 1285 (holding that a defendant’s claim that his plea was involuntary and unintelligent because his counsel rendered ineffective assistance is .not barred by a conviction appeal waiver). However, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow meaningful review of Kennedy’s conflict of interest argument on direct appeal. *See Massaro v. United States,*538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). Accordingly, we AFFIRM Kennedy’s conviction, without prejudice to his ability to raise his conflict of interest claim on collateral review.

AFFIRMED.
Paul Edward WALKER v. STATE

CR-15-0277

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

Affirmed.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 8, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-2002 Lower Tribunal No. F14-24007

________________ 

### Santiago Milian, a/k/a Santiago Jimenez,

Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge. Santiago Milian a/k/a Santiago Jimenez, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-1070 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-175-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrance D. GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-13538 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed January 19, 2017

David Lance Goldberg, Robert G. Davies, Pamela C. Marsh, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Terrance D. Goodman, Talladega, AL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Augustus Harper, III, appointed counsel for Terrance Goodman 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 Goodman’s convictions and total sentence are AFFIRMED.
Clyde Eugene WILLIAMS v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-00634-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: January 23, 2018 Closed: April 19, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-51224 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-98-CR-913-2-DB

-------------------- September 17, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alejandro Chavez appeals his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1). Chavez argues that the district court erred in using a juvenile adjudication to increase his criminal history score under § 4A1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Chavez’ plea agreement contains a provision in which Chavez waived his right to appeal his sentence unless the sentence was the result of an upward departure. We have reviewed the recordNo. 98-51224 -2- and conclude that the waiver was informed and voluntary and is therefore binding on Chavez. See United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Chavez’ argument that the district court erred in increasing his criminal history score on the basis of a juvenile adjudication under § 4A1.2 is barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision. See Portillo , 18 F.3d at 292. As to the sentencing issue, the appeal is dismissed. See United States v. Gaitan , 171 F.3d 222, 223 (5th Cir. 1999); 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. Chavez also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing because his counsel did not request a downward departure on the basis that the technical application of the Sentencing Guidelines overstated the seriousness of his criminal history. To prove ineffective assistance, Chavez must show both that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 694 (1984). Regardless whether the assistance provided by Chavez’ trial counsel was deficient, Chavez’ claim must fail because he has not met his burden to show prejudice. See United States v. Flores-Ochoa , 139 F.3d 1022, 1024-1025 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 2383 (1998). As to the ineffective assistance of counsel issue, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
M.E.D. v. C.J.C.

2160464

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Donnie WINFREY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3691

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 1, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Anthony Paul JOHN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0351

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EX PARTE Gregory COX

CR-16-0533

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 606

- CR

EX PARTE ALFONSO SANTANA VILLA

, Appellant

Appeal from the 1 74th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 752734

- A ).

TO THE 1 74TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 23rd day of July

, 201 5 , the cause upon appeal to revise

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on June 8, 2015 . After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court that there i s no reversible error in the judgment. It is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and

ORDERED that the judgment of the court below be affirmed

.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered July 23 , 201 5

.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack

and Justice s Higley and Massengale

.WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed

.

October 2, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Lloyd BLAIR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7609

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

Walter Lloyd Blair, Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Christian Jacques Nauvel, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Walter Lloyd Blair seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blair has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, *193although we grant Blair’s motion to file an oversized brief, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         345,074
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,037,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                   333,144
<INVENTORY>                                     72,547
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,991,133
<PP&E>                                      14,133,247
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,598,025)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,208,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,154,692
<BONDS>                                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     77,500
<COMMON>                                        92,329
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,094,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,208,906
<SALES>                                      9,110,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,110,494
<CGS>                                      (6,444,973)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (2,375,850)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               684,444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (50)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (457,599)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                516,466
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            516,466
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   516,466
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
Reginald W. DARLING, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1580

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 28, 2018

Reginald W. Darling, pro se, Petitioner.

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

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as unauthorized. *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Lewis, Makar, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02958]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-539-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: TETLP Ministerial Compliance Filing 
RP21-1001-000 to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/22.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02958 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P