alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Marion SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. HENDRICK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15620

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

James Marion Sims, Pro Se

Sara D. Van Loh, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

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). Sims’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM***

James.Marion Sims, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sims did not properly exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning his claim or show that exhaustion was effectively unavailable. *See Griffin v. Arpaio,*557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] grievance [only] suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.”); *Sapp v. Kimbrell,*623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are rendered “effectively unavailable”).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Purna Bahadur THAPA, a/k/a Purma Bahadar Thapa, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2157

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

Yagya P. Nepal, San Leandro, California, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel, Colette J. Winston, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Purna Bahadur Thapa, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Thapa’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, *see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re Thapa*(B.I.A. Sept. 9, 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Charles N. IVEY Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL,1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-3342

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 3, 2017

Filed: July 5, 2017

*320Frederick S. Spencer, Mountain Home, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Solomon Matthew Boyle, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michelle Mariana Myers Montemayor, Assistant General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, Michael McGaughran, for Defendant-Appellee

Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

1

. Nancy A. Berryhill has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of Social Secu*320rity, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

PER CURIAM.

Charles N. Ivey appeals the order of the district court2 affirming the Commissioner’s determination that he is not entitled to disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, after his hearing before an administrative law judge. Upon de novo review, see Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548-49 (8th Cir. 2014), we are satisfied that the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The Honorable Erin Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
#### In the Matter of Jamie Patterson, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 898]

*815Lahtinen, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

On October 18, 2002, petitioner was charged in two misbehavior reports with various disciplinary rule violations. In the first, he was charged with violating a direct order, harassment and interfering with an employee after he approached a female correction counselor near an area known as post one and repeatedly asked to speak with her despite her refusal. The second report was based upon events immediately following the incident providing the basis for the first report. In it, petitioner was charged with violating a direct order and a facility movement violation after he ignored a correction officer’s directive to return to his housing unit and was later observed lingering around post one. The reports were combined for purposes of the subsequent tier III disciplinary hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges except violating a direct order as alleged in the first misbehavior report. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal, resulting in this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. Initially, we find that the misbehavior reports provided petitioner with sufficient “notice of the charge [s] against him and the opportunity to prepare a defense” *(Matter of Hamlett v Goord,*275 AD2d 497, 498 [2000]; *see Matter of Eure v Goord,*271 AD2d 786, 786 [2000]). We also find that the testimony of the female correction counselor and the vocational supervisor who escorted her on the date in question, combined with the detailed misbehavior report, provide substantial evidence supporting the charges of harassment and interfering with an employee as alleged in the first report *(see Matter of Ferrar v Selsky,*1 AD3d 671 [2003]; *Matter of Pride v Cunningham,*308 AD2d 649 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 505 [2003]). The second misbehavior report, authored by the correction officer who directed petitioner to return to his cell and signed by another correction officer who witnessed petitioner loitering around post one after this order was given, constituted substantial evidence supporting the charges of refusing a direct order and a facility movement violation as alleged in the second *816report *(see People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]; *Matter of Alejandro v Goord,*278 AD2d 731 [2000]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining claims, to the extent that they have been preserved for our review, and find them to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### Thomas P. VITRANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer SAAD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7224

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2017

Decided: April 26, 2017

Thomas P. Vitrano, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Erin Carter Ti-son, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas P. Vitrano, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s finding that Vitrano *192failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, concluding that waiving the exhaustion requirement served the interest of judicial economy, and denying relief on the merits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Vitrano v. Saad,*No. 1:15-cv-00220-IMK-JES, 2016 WL 4540828 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 31, 2016). We deny Vitrano’s motion for transcript at government expense. 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*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

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

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-30085

USDC No. 94-CR-50068-5

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINALD D. WILSON,

also known as Reg,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

November 19, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Wilson appeals the sentence he received after his

case was remanded for resentencing. He contends that the district

court erred in enhancing his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)

because, “[t]here was no evidence that [he] ever carried a weapon

during a drug transaction or around a drug transaction.” He also

challenges the quantity and type of drugs attributable to him for
-2-

sentencing purposes and the district court's refusal to grant a

downward departure based on his “model prison record.”

Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities

convinces us that the district court committed no reversible error.

We review the district court's application of the Sentencing

Guidelines de novo and the factual findings for clear error. See

United States v. Dixon, 132 F.3d 192, 201 (5th Cir. 1997), cert.

denied, )) U.S. )), 118 S. Ct. 1581, 140 L. Ed. 2d 796 (1998). The

district court did not clearly err when it found that Wilson

possessed a firearm during a drug trafficking offense and enhanced

Wilson's sentence under § 2D1.1(b)(1). See Dixon, 132 F.3d at 202

(finding no clear error where evidence indicated defendant

possessed firearm and possession of firearm by coconspirator

reasonably foreseeable). Wilson's challenge to the quantity and

type of drugs attributable to him for sentencing purposes is barred

by the law of the case doctrine and is beyond the scope of remand.

See United States v. Marmolejo, 139 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir.

1998)(holding that resentencing court on remand may only decide the

issues directed by appeals court), petition for cert. filed, ))

U.S.L.W. )) (U.S. Jul. 20, 1998)(No. 98-5372); Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

v. Traillour Oil Co., 987 F.2d 1138, 1150 (5th Cir. 1993)(“The 'law

of the case' doctrine generally precludes the reexamination of

issues decided on appeal, either by the district court on remand or

by the appellate court itself on subsequent appeal.”).

Additionally, we do not address Wilson's challenge to the district

court's refusal to depart downwardly because this issue is beyond
-3-

the scope of remand. See Marmolejo, 139 F.3d at 530-31.

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9342-9343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03582]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1019-000]

Powell River Energy Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Powell River Energy Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is March 7, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed 
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using 
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three 
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, 
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public 
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency 
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the 
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free, 
(886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

[[Page 9343]]

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03582 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Troy MARTIN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5000

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lionel Elizah WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7715

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Lionel Elizah Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lionel Elizah Williams 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 ap-pealability. 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 *273the 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Served: September 17, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 17th of September, 2012.

Essential Air Service at

El CENTRO, CALIFORNIA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT-OST-2008-0299

NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PROPOSALS AT EL CENTRO, CALIFORNIA

By Order 2010-12-6 the Department selected SkyWest Airlines, Inc., d/b /a United Express, to 

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

rate is set to expire on December 31, 2012. With the end of the contract approaching, by 

Order 2012-8-18, August 17, 2012, we requested proposals by September 18, 2012. On 

September 17, 2012, Seaport Airlines, Inc., requested a two-week extension to submit proposals 

at El Centro.

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

2012.

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
Filed 4/18/13 Mkrtchyan v. Connect to Communications CA2/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

ARAM MKRTCHYAN, 

 Plaintiff and Appellant, 

 v. 

CONNECT TO COMMUNICATIONS, 

 Defendant and Respondent. 

 B244224 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. BC436000) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Ernest M. Hiroshige, Judge. Dismissed. 

 Aram Mkrtchyan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. 

—————————— 
2

 Aram Mkrtchyan filed an action alleging fraud against Connect to 

Communications. On July 24, 2012, the trial court sustained Connect to 

Communication’s demurrer with leave to amend within 10 days. The court stated that the 

complaint lacked facts to support the fraud allegations. Mkrtchyan was served with the 

notice of ruling on July 30, 2012. 

 On September 18, 2012, the court granted Connect to Communication’s motion to 

dismiss the complaint (to which Mkrtchyan did not file an opposition). The court ruled: 

“Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint as of the date of this ruling. Plaintiff 

apparently no longer intends to pursue this action against Defendant or is unable to 

amend the defects discussed in the Court’s July 24, 2012 ruling on demurrer. 

Accordingly, the motion is granted.” Mkrtchyan appealed. Connect to Communication 

did not file a respondent’s brief. 

 It is an appellant’s burden to procure an adequate record on appeal allowing 

review of the issues. When the appellant fails to provide such a record, we may dismiss 

the appeal. (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.) 

Mkrtchyan appeals from the dismissal of his complaint, but he has not included a copy of 

the complaint in the record. Nor does the record contain the demurrer filed by Connect to 

Communications, or any opposition by Mkrtchyan. We note that Mkrtchyan’s brief is 

also deficient, citing no authority, and giving no description of the complaint. As we lack 

the documents that were the basis for the trial court’s ruling, including the complaint that 

was the subject of the dismissal, we dismiss the appeal. 
3

DISPOSITION 

The appeal is dismissed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 JOHNSON, J. 

We concur: 

 MALLANO, P. J. 

 ROTHSCHILD, J.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 30, 2018

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 16-4217

JERMEL POPE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JANET PERDUE

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of

Illinois.

No. 14-cv-01393 

Sara Darrow,

Judge.

O R D E R

It is ORDERED that footnote 1 at page 5 of the original opinion is STRICKEN and 

replaced with the following revised footnote 1: 

The Government’s reliance on Spencer v. Kemna’s mootness standard is 

misplaced. See 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). While Pope is no longer incarcerated, 

he continues to serve his sentence on supervised release – another form of 

custody. Trotter, 270 F.3d at 1152. Thus, Spencer, a case in which the 

petitioner’s sentence had already expired, does not apply. See Spencer, 523 

U.S. at 7.
No. 16-4217 Page 2

It is further ORDERED that the statute referred to on line 2 of the CONCLUSION 

at page 13 of the original opinion is revised from § 3538(e) to § 3583(e).

Finally, it is ORDERED that the Respondent’s Petition for Panel Rehearing is 

DENIED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnulfo DELUNA-MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40218 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

Arnulfo Deluna-Munoz, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO,, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arnulfo De Luna-Munoz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). De Luna-Munoz 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.

*

 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.
EX PARTE D.L.G.

(In re: The matter of D.S., a minor child)

2160670

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.