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

No. 16-41301 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 6, 2017

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Kathryn Shephard, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Luciano Solis-Ruiz appeals his conviction and sentence for importing five kilograms or more of cocaine into the United States. 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960(a)(1), (b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2. His offense involved 28 kilograms of cocaine. The district court sentenced him at the bottom of the guideline range to 87 months of imprisonment. Solis-Ruiz challenges the denial of a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and he raises a foreclosed challenge to the sufficiency of the factual basis for his guilty plea.

Whether a defendant was a minor or minimal participant is a factual question that we review for clear error. *United States v. Torres-Hernandez,*843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2016). A district court need not expressly weigh each factor in deciding whether to grant a mitigating role reduction. *Id.*at 209. Solis-Ruiz decided to bring his common-law wife and her 15-year old son with him when he tried to bring the drugs into the United States. Thus, he did participate in planning the criminal activity to some degree, and he had some degree of discretion in performing the acts. *See*§ 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)(ii), (iv)). The district court’s finding that Solis-Ruiz was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant in the- criminal activity” was plausible in light of the record as a *334whole. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A)); *see Torres-Hernandez,*843 F.3d at 207.

Solis-Ruiz argues that his factual basis was insufficient because it failed to establish that he knew the type and quantity of drugs that he was importing. He seeks to reduce his conviction to importation of marijuana, which carries a five-year maximum prison sentence under § 960(b)(4). As he acknowledges, we rejected the same argument under a nearly identical drug statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841. *See United States v. Betancourt,*586 F.3d 303, 307-09 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THURMAN GAINES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
HOROWITZ, Doctor, MCSP,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 15713

D.C. No. 1:15

- cv

- 00587

- LJO

- SAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’ Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Thurman G aines appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal as a sanction for failure

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 15713

to comply with discovery obligations. Malone v. USPS , 833 F.2d 128, 1 30 (9th
Cir. 1987). We vacate and remand.
Gaines failed to comply with a court order compelling responses to
interrogatories and requests for production on the i ssue of administrative
exhaustion, and defendant twice moved for terminating sanctions. In opposition to
defendant’s second motion for sanctions, Gaines provided further supplemental
responses, which defendant stated were adequate. The magistrate judge

r ecommended denying defendant’s second motion for terminating sanctions but
imposing an evidentiary sanction “prohibit[ing] [Gaines] from supporting his case
or opposing Defendant’s defenses with any evidence not disclosed in response to

Defendant’s exhaust ion interrogatories or requests for production of documents.”
The district court instead granted terminating sanctions on the ground that “[i]t

would not be possible at trial to exclude all of the issues not responded to in
discovery, and for [Gaines] to still have a case to present.”

It is unclear from the district court’ s order what evidence the district court

intended to exclude and how the exclusion would preclude Gaines from presenting

t he merits of his medical deliberate indifference claim. Mo reover, it is not clear

whether an evidentiary sanction is warranted g iven that Gaines eventually
complied with his discovery obligations to defendant’s satisfaction

. See

Henderson v. Duncan , 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal with3 18

- 15713

prejudice i s a harsh sanction that should be employed only in “extreme
circumstances”). We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED

.
Pamela Ann LANTRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3563

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Order entered December 31, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00924
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF D.M. AND A.M., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 08
- 20402



### O RDER
On October 23, 2014, the court reporter informed the Court that she had not received a request to prepare the reporter’s record. In a letter dated October 27, 2014, the Court instructed appellant to provide this Court, within ten days, with notice that he had requested the reporter’s record and verification that payment arrangements had been made. We cautioned appellant that , if the required documentation was not received within the time requested, we may order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed the required documentation. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal submitted without the reporter’s
record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c). Appellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of t his order.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Duncan Jason SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-0427

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Kirk M. CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56525

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

FILED OCTOBER 4, 2017

Kirk M. Carmichael, Poway, CA, pro se.

Jenny Lee Merris, Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC, Costa Mesa, CA, Glenn J. Plattner, Esquire, Richard P. Steelman, Jr., Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. 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 *

Kirk M. Carmichael appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying Carmichael’s motion to alter the judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have an independent duty to determine whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. *Wash. Envtl. Council v. Bellon,*732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Carmichael’s action was proper because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as Carmichael failed to exhaust the administrative claim process under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”). *See*12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)-(10) (setting forth the FIRREA administrative claim process); *Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA,*760 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2014) (12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D) strips courts of jurisdiction over claims that have not been administratively exhausted under FIRREA); *Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,*673 F.3d 1207, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that “a claim asserted against a purchasing bank based on the conduct of a failed bank must be exhausted under FIRREA”). We treat the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. *See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc.,*377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice).

Because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, we do not consider Carmichael’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by denying Carmichael’s motion to alter the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Fernando MENOCAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1785

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018

Fernando Menocal, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    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 State

          - [Public Notice: 11653]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Igshaan Adams: Desire Lines” at the Art Institute of Chicago, in Chicago, Illinois, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

      ( print page 9406)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State,L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Stacy E. White,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-03507 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Alberto REYES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-567

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 9, 2018

Alberto Reyes, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

     The undersigned, Leonard F. Ferro, Chief Accounting Officer of Galey &
Lord, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.(S)1350, as
adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March
29, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Leonard F. Ferro
------------------------
Leonard F. Ferro
Chief Accounting Officer
May 13, 2003
John H. LOFTON v. STATE of Mississippi

2015-CT-01809-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 20, 2018 Closed: May 10, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 20, 2018

No. 04-18-00843-CR

IN RE David John GUARDIOLA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On November 7, 2018, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering 

the petition and because relator is represented by trial counsel, this court concludes relator is not 

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on November 20, 2018.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of November, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 18-0831-CR-A and 18-0832-CR-A, styled The State of Texas v. David 

John Guardiola, pending in the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Jessica 

Crawford presiding.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20056

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ALFREDO MIRANDA-GONZALEZ, also known as Alfredo Miranda-Gonzales,

also known as Alfredo Miranda,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-101-1

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The attorney appointed to represent Alfredo Miranda-Gonzalez has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Miranda has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 9, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-20056 Document: 00511317655 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2010
No. 10-20056

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-20056 Document: 00511317655 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2010
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S
NO. WR-94,079-01 NO. WR-94,119-01

IN RE STARR SMITH, Relator IN RE KOLTON HODGES, Relator
ON P ETIT IONS FOR WRITS OF P ROHIBIT ION TRIAL CAUSE NO. 1626189 IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT TRIAL CAUSE NO. 1565223 IN THE 179TH DIST RICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Relators, throug h respe ctive counsel, have filed motions for leave to file petitions for writs of prohibition under this Court’s orig inal jurisdiction. Bo t h R el at ors contend that Har ris County officia ls have unlaw fully

cre ated a district c ourt and ha ve tra nsfer red the ir ca ses from a

leg itimate district court cre ated by the L eg islature to an illegitimate district court cre ated by the Har ris County Commi ssioners Court and the Ha rris County

District Court J udg es. Respondents, the Har

ris County Commi ssioners Court and the Har ris County District Court J udg es, are invited to provide this Court w ith a response to Re lators’ claims. The response may be provided by the Har

ris County Attorney ’s Offic e, repr esenta tives of which have alre ady filed in this2

Court notices of appea

ranc e in these case s. Any response shall be filed with this Court within thirty (30) da y s of the date of this order.

Filed: Oc tober 5, 2022 Do not publish
Michael FREUNDLICH, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Melissa MCGREW and Coley Willingham, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2292

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 14, 2017

ORDERED that the stipulation of dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this petition for writ of certiorari is hereby dismissed.

SUAREZ, LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
James Michael KELLY v. STATE

CR-16-0149

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017 Reh. denied June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60624

Conference Calendar

 

WELTON ZOLICOFFER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DONALD A.

MCKELVY; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:97-CV-153-BrS

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

December 14, 1999

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Welton Zolicoffer, formerly federal prisoner # 05145-067 in

Mississippi, appeals the district court’s denial of two motions

to reconsider the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 

Zolicoffer was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with

the intent to distribute in the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He argues that the district

court abused its discretion by construing his § 2241 petition as

a § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.
No. 98-60624

-2-

The district court properly construed Zolicoffer’s § 2241

motion as a § 2255 petition since he challenges the validity of

his sentence. See United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177

(5th Cir. 1994); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1131-

32 (5th Cir. 1987). Zolicoffer argues that, since § 2255 is

unavailable to him because of his prior unsuccessful § 2255

petitions, he should be allowed to pursue these claims under

§ 2241. A prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion is not, in and of

itself, sufficient to establish the inadequacy or ineffectiveness

of the remedy under § 2255. See McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9,

10 (5th Cir. 1979). 

While a § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where

the prisoner is incarcerated, a § 2255 motion must be filed in

the district where the prisoner was convicted. United States v.

Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir. 1992). Zolicoffer was

sentenced by the district court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania. After the Mississippi district court correctly

construed his § 2241 petiton as coming under § 2255, it lacked

jurisdiction to decide the § 2255 motion on the merits. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing

Zolicoffer’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

Zolicoffer has failed to demonstrate that the district court

abused its discretion in denying either of his motions for

reconsideration. Because his appeal lacks arguable merit, it is 

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Zolicoffer is warned that the

filing of future frivolous appeals will invite the imposition of
No. 98-60624

-3-

sanctions. He is cautioned to review any pending appeals to

ensure that they do not raise issues which are frivolous. 

DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 156TH DISTRICT COURT of SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 31st day of

August, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Luis Baldemar Rios Hernandez a/k/a

Arturo Rios, Appellant,

v.

W-S Industrial Services, Inc. Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00404-CV (Tr.Ct.No. S-13-5374CV-B-1)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

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

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 20th day of November, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
EX PARTE Aven COTTON

CR-16-0280

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.