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

No. 15-56663

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 16, 2017

Emery Soos, Sr., Pro Se

Valerie Larissa Makarewicz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, John Schumann, Bridget Maria Rowan, Attorneys, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Emery Soos, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his *334action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Soos fails to challenge the district court’s decision dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore he has waived such a challenge. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant....”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3156

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Raul Chavez-Rios, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 6, 2007

Filed: September 14, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Raul Chavez-Rios (Chavez-Rios) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a park, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), 860(a), and 846 (Count 1); and distributing methamphetamine

within 1,000 feet of a park, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and

860(a) (Counts 2-4). Chavez-Rios acknowledged before entering his plea that he was

subject to a statutory mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison on Count 1. The

district court1

 sentenced Chavez-Rios to the statutory minimum 120 months’
-2-

imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release with the sentences on the counts to run

concurrently. On appeal, Chavez-Rios’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sentence is unreasonable under United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). This argument is unavailing. Because

Chavez-Rios did not qualify for a substantial-assistance departure or for safety-valve

relief, the district court had no authority to impose a sentence below the statutory

minimum. See United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); United

States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We grant counsel leave

to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.2


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


         In  connection  with the Annual  Report of Natural Gas Services  Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended  December 31, 2004, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Earl R. Wait,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.       The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



                                                   /s/  Earl R. Wait
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Earl R. Wait
                                                  Chief Financial Officer


                                                  July 6, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,968
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,240
<INVENTORY>                                     52,747
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,871
<PP&E>                                          82,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,872
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   167,013
<SALES>                                        177,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               177,058
<CGS>                                          134,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,913
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,488
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,425
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,425
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05


</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

p0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

138445

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138445 COA: 279861 Gratiot CC: 05-005008-FH

JOBEY L. HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 22, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
E.S. v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160101

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
494 A.2d 210

#### MARYLAND COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS v. MASS TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION.

No. 8,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 28, 1985.

*417Risselle R. Fleisher, Baltimore, Gen. Counsel (Philip L. Marcus, Associate Gen. Counsel, Baltimore, on brief), for appellant.

Joseph S. Kaufman, Baltimore, Gen. Counsel Mass Transit Admin. (Glenn E. Bushel, Baltimore, on brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss the appeal, the answer thereto, and oral argument of counsel, and

It appearing to the Court that the complainant, Hamilton Taylor, has, since the grant of certiorari in this case, effectively withdrawn his claim of employment discrimination for reasons of ill-health and inability to accept employment with the appellee, even if successful upon appeal, and

It further appearing to the Court that no other grounds of appeal are properly extant in the case, it is therefore, this 28th day of June, 1985,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the case be, and it is hereby, dismissed as moot, Md.Rule 835 a. 6; *County Commissioners v. Secretary of Health,*302 Md. 566, 489 A.2d 1127 (1985), the appellant to pay the costs.
NO. 07-06-0330-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A AUGUST 15, 2006

______________________________ LEMUEL MATTHEW SHELTON, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HA LE COUNTY; NO. B14964-0305; H ONORABLEED SELF , JUDGE

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and H ANCOCK, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION Appellant

Lemuel Matthew S helto n was convicted of driving while intox icated and sentenced to five years confinement and a $2,500 fine, su spended in favor of communi ty supervision. On February 6, 2006, the trial co urt granted t he State’s motion to revoke community

supervision and impos ed the original sentence. On July 27, 2006, appellant2

filed a pro se document indicating he had expressed to his appointed counsel, Laurie Key, an intent to appeal the judgment revoking community supervision. He maintains an appeal bond of $20,0 00 was p osted and that he was later arrested f or fa il ing to prosecute the appeal. The Hal e County District Clerk confirmed by letter that an appeal bond had be en posted on Febru ary6, 2006. The District Clerk also noted that on April 4, 2006, appellant was in her office and had expressed an intent to appeal his revocation, but did not file any documents. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. A defe ndant must file a written notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within 30 days after the date sentence is impos ed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(c) & 26.2(a)(1). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide a fifteen-daywindow in which to file the notice of appeal if it is accompanied by a motion for extension of time. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. This Court is without jurisdiction to address the merits of an appea l and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal if it is not ti mely perf ected. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex .Cr.App. 1 998). Ap pellant’ s intent to appeal expressed in the document filed on July 27, 2006, is untimely and does not invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Appellant

may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Cou rt of Crimi nal Appe als. See Tex. Code Cri m. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 ( Vernon 200 5). See alsoEx parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (holding that counsel has a duty to perfect an appeal whether appointed or retain ed).3

Accordingly, we dismiss the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction. Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish.
Dyan DAHARI, Appellant, v. Zion DAHARI, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2910

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6397 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow certain funds to be used 

for incremental costs of incorporating art into facilities, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2023 

Ms. ADAMS (for herself, Mr. CARSON, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. PINGREE, Mr. MCGOVERN, and Ms. NORTON) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow certain 

funds to be used for incremental costs of incorporating 

art into facilities, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saving Transit Art 

5 Resources Act’’ or the ‘‘STAR Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ALLOWING ART. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5323(h) of title 49, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 

2 

•HR 6397 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘or’’ after the 

2 semicolon; 

3 (2) by striking paragraph (2); and 

4 (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para5 graph (2). 

6 (b) NO SPECIAL RULE.—Section 5309 of such title 

7 is amended by— 

8 (1) striking subsection (p); and 

9 (2) redesignating subsection (q) as subsection 

10 (p). 

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaime TORRES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50312 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 26, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kristin Michelle Kimmelman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jaime Torres, who is serving a 360-month prison sentence for money laundering and participating in a drug conspiracy, appeals the district court’s decision to deny his motion for a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Through that motion, he requested that the court reduce his prison term based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which had the effect of retroactively lowering most drug-related base offense levels by two levels. He argues that, in denying the motion, the district court improperly failed to account for his post-conviction conduct and weighed the seriousness of his offense too heavily.

Torres, though, has not shown that the district court abused its discretion. *See United States v. Henderson,*636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). The court correctly recognized that he was eligible for a sentence reduction; however, it denied the motion as a matter of discretion, referencing Torres’s leadership role, his recruitment of family members to participate in his crimes, his use of his family’s land in committing the offenses, and the large-scale nature of the criminal conduct, all of which were proper factors to consider. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). It also had before it Torres’s record of attending vocational training programs and heard counsel’s arguments for a reduced sentence during the hearing; but, though a court may consider post-sentencing behavior in determining whether to grant a sentence reduction, it is not required to do so. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s., comment. (n.l(B)(iii)). A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion where, as here, it gives due consideration to the motion and the § 3553(a) factors. *See United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

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.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7204

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DEANTE DRAKE, a/k/a Panama, a/k/a Shawn, a/k/a Papa Bear , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. ( 1:07

- cr
- 00053

- IMK

- MJA

- 1 )

Submitted : December 1 3 , 2017 Decided: January 2, 2018

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Deante Drake , Appellant Pro Se. Randolph John Bernard , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding prece dent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: On September 5, 2017, Deante Drake filed a notice of appeal from his May 13, 2008, criminal judgment. Because Drake previously appealed from his 2008 judgment , see United States v. Drake , 318 F. App’x 247 (4th Cir. 2009 ) (No. 08

- 4589), this C ourt is without jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal from the same judgment. In addition, Drake’s notice of appeal is inordinately late. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1) (providing 30 days to file a notice of appeal in a criminal c ase). Accordingly, we deny Drake’s motion to show cause and supplemental motion to
show cause and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial information extracted from SEC
     Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
     statements as of and for the six months ended June 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883946
<NAME>                        TREEV INC
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,717
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,212)
<INVENTORY>                                        737
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,975
<PP&E>                                           5,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,454)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,391
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,099
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,817
<SALES>                                         10,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,950
<CGS>                                            6,586
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,613)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,613)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.41)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
NO. 32.1
 Form
10-K
 Echo
Resources, Inc.
 File No.
000-26703




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of Echo Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pieter DuRand, Chief
Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





(1) the
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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:
March 30,
2009




By:     /s/Peiter DuRand


Pieter
DuRand


Chief
Executive Officer


Chief
Financial Officer











A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Echo Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Echo Resources, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
     1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Excalibur Industries, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Matthew C. Flemming, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

      1.    The 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 report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.



/s/ Matthew C. Flemming
-----------------------
Matthew C. Flemming, Chief Financial Officer
April 29, 2004
Juan SOTO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4685

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 17, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal of the summary denial of petitioner's postconviction motion in the trial court is granted in circuit court case number 04-CF-2640 for review of the trial court's order of Fabruary 6, 2017.

The circuit court clerk shall treat this order as a notice of appeal, promptly certify same and return it to this court as with any notice of appeal, and a new appellate case number will be assigned to this appeal and an acknowledgment letter will issue at that time. The summary record shall be transmitted to this court when the certified copy of this order is returned by the trial court clerk.

After a new appellate case number is assigned and an acknowledgment letter has issued, this court will issue an order advising the appellant of the due date of the optional initial brief.

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.