alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Antonio VALENZUELA Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-1056

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 2016

Filed: December 5, 2016

Brandon T. Carter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brice R. White, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juan Antonio Valenzuela, Pro Se

Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Juan Valenzuela directly appeals the district court’s1 judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, and distributing methamphetamine. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and the reasonableness of Valenzuela’s 150-month within-Guidelines-range prison term. Valenzuela has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that witnesses at trial were not credible, and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by failing to introduce evidence showing that Valenzuela was involved with marijuana, because such evidence would have supported his defense theory. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

As to counsel’s arguments, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Valenzuela’s convictions, see United States v. Garcia, 646 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing sufficiency of evidence to support distribution conviction where defendant participated in controlled buy); United States v. Romero, 150 F.3d 821, 826 (8th Cir. 1998) (discussing sufficiency of evidence to support conspiracy conviction where resale quantities of drugs were sold), and we find that Valenzuela’s 150-month prison term is not unreasonable, see United States v. Avalos, 817 F.3d 597, 602 (8th Cir. 2016) (applying presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines-range prison term); United States v. Harlan, 815 F.3d 1100, 1107 (8th Cir. 2016) (discussing *914grounds for finding abuse of discretion in sentencing). As to Valenzuela’s pro se arguments, we note that the credibility of the trial witnesses was for the jury to determine, see United States v. Aguilar-Portillo, 334 F.3d 744, 747 (8th Cir. 2003) (reviewing court does not judge witness credibility), and we conclude that the government’s failure to introduce evidence supporting Valenzuela’s defense theory was not improper, see United States v. Clayton, 787 F.3d 929, 933 (8th Cir. 2015) (discussing prosecutorial misconduct).

Finally, after conducting an independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue. The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
Jaron Antonio TOWNSEND v. STATE

CR-16-0017

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the Company's form
10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,651
<SECURITIES>                                 3,404,037
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,460,029
<PP&E>                                         136,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                (53,318)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,561,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,157
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           373
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,749,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,561,550
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (427,114)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (335,838)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (335,838)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (335,838)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David L. HUGGARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6457

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

David L. Huggard, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David L. Huggard appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for judicial recusal and the production of documents. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Huggard,*No. 1:13-cr-00005-JPJ-1, 2017 WL 1181015 (W.D. Va. Mar. 28, 2017). We deny Hug-' gard’s motion for appointment of counsel, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*258fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Michael Lamar HOWARD v. STATE

CR-16-0479

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017 Reh. denied June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Sergio Sebastian GONZALEZ v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-01271-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: April 9, 2018 Closed: May 24, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition For Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
OFFICEOFTHEA?TORNEY **GENERAL** OFTEXAS **AUSTIN**

0 opinion or this

oe* net bare authorproduced food pro&-

Code dealareat
T eanplayee

in any 0 Prfeon sy8tem, ally intrsrted uetlon oonneated with the 11be ~ontinsd in the ear than t+o nar mortitb4n

870 of the Penal cods doalareet

nlo oflIar or arplgee of the date peuttonti~ ehall be pemaitted to pwutuse sny goods or siekrehhandise or other proparty most the state or Penitentiary syetea, esoept eu6h surpltm Goode, vegetables, ioe, water, steam 4zid lights as may be produced
or m4aufaotured on the premiee4 cl the pfmh tent&wy, or to appropriate to his privateBonorable 0. W; Stakes - page S

use or employment the labor, services, or use of any State penitentiaryoonviot, or of any animal, rchiale or other personal propertybelonging to the State, unlesoltbeby the axpress aanwint of the renitentlaryBoard bad b7 anorde@ tothateffeet entered of reaord on the mlnutee of 8a&iBoard, prbr&ding for the amOUnt to be paidby such 0ffi.oe.r or ttmplorea, for theme, employmentand aerv~oes of 8uah cronviot

**or** 

### oomiota for the

### use of any personal propertybelo~@ng to the state; l l l . Any euoh 0m0m or saplgee rho shalltiolate w pro~ieion of tbb Artfole &all **be** punishedbyd%amLssalSrombis aSfloe or SmploJlnent and by a fine of not lees th+n twenty-fivedollam 

### normore than t80 hundred dollara, amd It **the oomlotion**  be for aeoeptlmg or reoeiving sruatlon from l hirer or a**omiate,** the party so aonntothepenalty above In jatlnot lees than oneyear.**e..
Aa interpretatian or theme statutem impel8 0a to **the oonludon**  **above amounted.** 

Of oourse, Mai8 ep%nlonwould xwt apply to a aase of speaAf3.0

legislatito appropriation of euah produets am part-of the ooqmuatlan to 8uab an employee,nor does it apply **to** sales oi theproduete of the penitentiary to BDployoea,M speoially provlded.indrtiole !m of the Penal **code above**  quote&.

very truly yours ATTGtUtsI

GRSB~AT,I

OF T 

### 666
The GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Linda P. SEVERINO, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1222

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 01, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Certiorari is dismissed.
#### Oscar Tyler, Respondent, *v.*William Heydorn, Appellant.

Argued and decided with *Central Bank of Troy*v. *Heydorn, ante,*p. 260.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6280 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6280

  To authorize additional appropriations for certain U.S. Customs and 
         Border Protection operations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2023

 Mr. Vasquez (for himself, Ms. Craig, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Salinas, and Ms. 
   Caraveo) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on 
Agriculture, Ways and Means, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize additional appropriations for certain U.S. Customs and 
         Border Protection operations, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Smart Border Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CERTAIN U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER 
              PROTECTION OPERATIONS.

    (a) Hiring.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security $300,000,000 to hire personnel for U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection operations at ports of entry, including 
agents, processing assistants, technicians, agriculture specialists, 
and import specialists.
    (b) Screening.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security $200,000,000 to procure, deploy, 
install, maintain, and operate screening technology at U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection ports of entry, such as non-intrusive inspection 
technology to inspect and detect cargo for illicit materials, such as 
fentanyl.
    (c) Infrastructure.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
Administrator of General Services $70,000,000 for port of entry 
infrastructure, including port of entry building infrastructure 
improvements, vehicle inspection lane expansion or improvements, 
pedestrian pathway and lane expansion or improvements, and 
modernization within ports of entry.
    (d) Availability.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 
purposes described in this section--
            (1) shall be expended by not later than one year after the 
        date of the enactment of this section; and
            (2) are in addition to amounts otherwise made available to 
        the Secretary of Homeland Security or to the Administrator of 
        General Services.
                                 <all>
```
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-2410

___________ Kathleen A. Cochrane, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. National Association of Letter * Carriers, AFL-CIO, Local Division, * [UNPUBLISHED] Branch 352; United States Postal * Service, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 29, 2002 Filed: December 3, 2002

___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kathleen Cochrane brought this action against her former employer, the United States Postal Service (USPS), and her former union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, and its Local Division, Branch 352 (collectively NALC), alleging that USPS had violated its collective bargaining agreement with NALC, and that NALC1 The HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- had breached its duty to fairly represent her. The district court 1 granted summary judgment to USPS and NALC, and Cochrane appeals. After careful review of the record, we affirm. The evidence before the district court did not create a genuine issue of material fact on whether NALC had breached its duty of fair representation. First, the record fails to show arbitrary conduct by NALC. Instead, the evidence demonstrates that NALC investigated Cochrane’s claim, and concluded, based upon its interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and the circumstances of Cochrane’s case, that she did not have a grievable complaint. Further, there is no evidence that NALC acted in bad faith or with discriminatory intent. See Schmidt v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 949 , 980 F.2d 1167, 1170 (8th Cir. 1992). As Cochrane was required to show a breach of the duty of fair representation to prevail against either defendant, seeScott v. United Auto., Local 879 , 242 F.3d 837, 840 (8th Cir. 2001), summary judgment was also appropriate on her claim against USPS for breach of the collective bargaining agreement, see Buford v. Runyon , 160 F.3d 1199, 1203 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Immunometabolism and Aging.                    

*Date:*                         February 23, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702,                         *firthkm@mail.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 7, 2022.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-02918 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Lee ANDERSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1420

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 10, 2017

Karl L. Schock, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Josh Lee, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, MATHESON and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

Lawrence Lee Anderson, Jr. accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment, below both the statutory maximum penalty and the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Although the plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, Mr. Anderson appealed. The government moves to enforce the appeal waiver under *United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).

Under *Hahn,*we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” *Id.*at 1325. We need not address a *Hahn*factor that the appellant does not contest. *See United States v. Porter,*405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005).

In his response to the government’s motion, Mr. Anderson, through counsel, informs the court that he does not oppose the motion. Further, he has not contested any of the *Hahn*factors. Accordingly, the motion to enforce is granted, and this matter is terminated.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tracy Antonio WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11333 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

*379James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tracy Antonio Willis, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Tracy Antonio Willis 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). Willis 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.
*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

*

Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., Senior District Judge for the District of Colorado,

sitting by designation.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 7, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SUMMUM, a corporate sole and church,

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v.

PLEASANT GROVE CITY, a municipal

corporation; JIM DANKLEF, Mayor;

MARK ATWOOD, City Council Member;

CINDY BOYD, City Council Member;

MIKE DANIELS, City Council Member;

DAROLD MCDADE, City Council

Member; JEFF WILSON, City Council

Member; CAROL HARMER, former City

Council Member; G. KEITH CORRY,

former City Council Member; FRANK

MILLS, City Administrator,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 06-4057

(D. Ct. No. 2:05-CV-638-DB )

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and KANE,

*

 District Judge.

In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 129 S. Ct. 1125, 1138 (2009), the Supreme

Court reversed this court’s opinion in Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, 483 F.3d 1044
- 2 -

(10th Cir. 2007) and held that the defendants’ conduct does not implicate the First

Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Because this conclusion is fatal to Summum’s claim

that the defendants violated its free speech rights, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial

of Summum’s motion for a preliminary injunction on this issue and REMAND to the

district court to conduct further proceedings consistent with this order and judgment and

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009). The mandate stayed originally

by our order dated September 5, 2007 is issued forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge
EAST ALABAMA MEDICAL CENTER v. STATE HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SHPDA) and Metro Treatment of Alabama, LP, d/b/a Sumter County Treatment Center

2160396

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Willie WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3624

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHANCELLOR FRAGOSO,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00182-CR

Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20160D01962)

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right 

of appeal. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with the trial 

court clerk within thirty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s right of 

appeal as required by TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d). The trial court clerk shall prepare a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no later than 

February 4, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.