alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alejandro GARCIA-LOZADA, also known as Alejandro Garcia-Lozado, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50922 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

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

Aejandro Garcia-Lozada, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Aejandro Garcia-Lozada 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). Garcia-Lozada has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Garcia-Lozada’s response. 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, Garcia-Lozada’s motion to strike counsel’s brief and proceed pro se is DENIED, 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. '
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- Bara Infoware, Inc. Under Contract No. W9I238-10-D-0033 APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61502

Mia S. Blackler, Esq.

Lubin Olson & Niewiadomski LLP San Francisco, CA Ms. Selina Singh

President Mr. Manjinder P. Singh

Vice President Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Robert W. Scharf, Esq. Alfred L. Faustino, Esq. Timothy A. Holliday, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed withprejudice. Dated: January 23, 2020

JAMES R. SWEET Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61502, Appeal ofBara Infoware, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated: 

## JAN 2 72020

2 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET, THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND THE STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          19,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,097
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,364
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   775
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (21,490)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21,490)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 accompanying Quarterly Report of AUG CORP. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
S Barocas, principal accounting 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


By:  /s/ Jeffrey S. Barocas
     ----------------------
     Jeffrey S. Barocas

     August 18, 2002
JMK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0187

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WESLEY SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s unopposed late-filed motion for a 30-day

extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including October 4, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 8 2020

09/08/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0187
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip Martin COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6991

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 20, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Philip Martin Cooper, Appellant Pro Se.

Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished .opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*266PER CURIAM:

Philip Martin Cooper appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion Request to Order a Forensic Psychological Evaluation and Study of Defendant to Determine Medical Care.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Cooper,*No. 2:99-cr-00138-AWA-1 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2016). We deny Cooper’s motion to appoint counsel and 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*
Clarence L. JENNINGS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3697

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               APR-01-1998          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1998          JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                 0                    0
<SECURITIES>                                           0                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 32,579,000           37,892,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,162,000            3,753,000
<INVENTORY>                                    2,274,000            2,289,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              36,520,000           42,052,000
<PP&E>                                        13,190,000           11,851,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,947,000            5,986,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                63,806,000           68,639,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         12,735,000           17,846,000
<BONDS>                                                0                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            0                    0
<COMMON>                                         110,000              108,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    23,211,000           21,869,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  63,806,000           68,639,000
<SALES>                                          724,000            1,280,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              28,341,000           54,959,000
<CGS>                                         10,010,000           23,656,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 21,291,000           45,368,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,554,000            6,418,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,290,000            1,778,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               508,000            1,167,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (888,000)              697,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (303,000)              417,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0                    0
<CHANGES>                                              0                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (585,000)              280,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.05)                 0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.05)                 0.03
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Cardtrend International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, King K. Ng, Chief Executive 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, as amended; and

2.

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

By: /s/ King K. NgKing K. Ng(Principal Executive Officer)April 15th, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





























---
#### In the Matter of Henry G. Bacon, Appellant, against George J. Gillespie et al., as Commissioners of the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Argued April 7, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*828
      *Henry Grantham Bacon*appellant, in person.

*Thomas D. Thacher, Corporation Counsel (Charles F. Murphy, Paxton Blair*and *Henry J. Shields*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
Garry COLEMAN, Appellant, v. GEO CARE INC., LLC, and Dr. Elizabeth Cooper, Appellees.

No. 4D18-700

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

Garry Coleman, Miami, pro se.

Scott C. Cochran and Jeffery R. Lawley of Billing, Cochran, Lyles, Mauro & Ramsey, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Conner and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
#### Eric FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-20623

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 5, 2017

Eric Flores, Pro Se

Edward Larry Marshall, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eric Flores, Texas prisoner # 2051801, moves for in forma pauperis (IFP) status to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on the basis of the three-strikes bar in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, as there is no timely notice of appeal in this case,1 we lack jurisdiction to consider Flores’s claims. *See Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Flores’s motion for IFP is DENIED.

*

 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.

1

. The notice of appeal was received one week after the deadline with an illegible postmark. By order dated August 3, 2017, we gave Flores the opportunity to provide evidence of timely mailing of his notice of appeal. He failed to do so by the deadline given.
#### Oscar ARMANDO, also known as Oscar Armando Sarrez, also known as Oscar Armando Mendoza, also known as Oscar Armando Escobar, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; Records; UCC State Classification Committee Members, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-11178

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 1, 2017

Oscar Armando, Pro Se

Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Armando, Texas prisoner # 1361831, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Additionally, he moves to enforce or for further relief.

In dismissing Armando’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(l) and 1915(e)(2)(B)®, the magistrate judge found that it was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations and that it raised claims which were either raised in *Armando v. Guerrero,*No. 1:13-CV-040 (N.D. Tex.) or could have been raised therein.

For the following reasons, Armando has not shown that his appeal presents legal points that are arguable on the merits and thus nonfrivolous. *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). First, Armando’s argument that his instant cause of action did not accrue until he received a copy of Warden Matt Kennedy's affidavit in *Armando v. Guerrero*is unavailing. Accrual occurred in 2012 when he sustained injuries after the denial of his transfer to another prison. *See Piotrowski v. City of Houston,*237 F.3d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 2001). Thereafter, he untimely filed this action in 2015. *See Stanley v. Foster,*464 F.3d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 2006).

Next, Armando has briefed no challenge to the magistrate judge’s alternative ruling that his instant action is duplicative of the claims he raised in *Armando v. Guerrero.*Accordingly, he has abandoned any chal*199lenge to that ruling. See *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Because Armando has failed to raise a legal point for appeal that is arguable on the merits, we deny his motion to proceed IFP on appeal and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See *Howard,*707 F.2d at 220; *Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 *&*n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. In light of our dismissal and the lack of clarity in Armando’s motion to enforce or for further relief, we deny that motion as well. See *Grant v. Cuellar,*59 F.3d 523, 524-25 (5th Cir. 1995).

MOTIONS DENIED and APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lloyd BROWN, III, also known as L. B., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-30143 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 9, 2017

Tracey Nicole Knight, Kevin G. Boit-mann, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ada Phleger, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Gary Y. Schwabe, Jr., Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lloyd Brown, federal prisoner # 23087-034, was sentenced to, *inter alia,*240 months’ imprisonment, following his 2005 guilty plea to: conspiracy to possess, and possession with intent to distribute, cocaine hydrochloride, cocaine base, and marijuana; pos*271session of firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (mandatory five-year consecutive sentence); and conspiracy to commit money laundering. In 2015, Brown moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), for a sentence reduction in the light of Amendment 782, which lowered his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range because it covered most drug-related base offense levels. In denying his motion, Brown contends the court failed to properly consider his commendable behavior while imprisoned, his positive efforts at self-improvement, and his deteriorating health.

The denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *E.g., United States v. Henderson,*636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” *Id.*(quoting *United States v. Smith,*417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir. 2005)). In short, Brown was entitled to adequate consideration of his motion. *See United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672-73 (5th Cir. 2009). We will generally assume a court has complied with the two-step inquiry applicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions by: determining movant’s eligibility for a reduction; and considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. *E.g., Henderson,*636 F.3d at 717-18; *United States v. Larry,*632 F.3d 933, 936-37 (5th Cir. 2011).

The parties agreed: Amendment 782 lowered Brown’s sentencing range; and he was eligible for a reduction. Moreover, the record shows the court “gave due consideration to [Brown’s] motion as a whole”, the policy statement of Guideline § 1B1.10, and the § 3553(a) factors. *United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion. *Id.*

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.
#### Pedro Eliseo LOPEZ-RAMIREZ Petitioner v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 16-1673

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 2016

Filed: December 6, 2016

Daniel Scott Reeker, Kendall Law Office, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Maarja Ti-ganik Luhtaru, Rosanne Perry, Trial Attorneys, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Pedro Elíseo Lopez-Ramirez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, but adds its own reasoning, this court reviews both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions together. See Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (decisions are reviewed to determine if substantial evidence supports them, and are reversed only when petitioner shows evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find in his favor). To qualify for asylum, Mr. Lopez-Ramirez had to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of, as relevant, membership in a particular social group. See Garcia-Colindres v. Holder, 700 F.3d 1153, 1156 (8th Cir. 2012). Further, he had to show that the particular social group he identified was composed of members who shared a common immutable characteristic, were defined with particularity, and were socially distinct within the society in question. See Ngugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132, 1137-38 (8th Cir. 2016). We conclude that the group he identified— Guatemalan males whose denial of gang involvement caused them to be beaten before coming to the United States—failed to meet those requirements. See Juarez Chi-*917lel v. Holder, 779 F.3d 850, 855 (8th Cir. 2015) (groups of persons who suffered violence, or threats of violence, due to their refusals to join criminal gangs lacks requisite visibility, particularity, and/or social distinction to qualify as particular social group); Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d 481, 483 (8th Cir. 2011) (agreeing with IJ and BIA that criminal violence and recruitment efforts by Guatemalan gang did not implicate enumerated protected ground). Because Mr. Lopez-Ramirez did not establish eligibility for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily failed as well. See Ngugi, 826 F.3d at 1139 (withholding of removal requires higher burden of proof than asylum). The petition for review is denied.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 

FOR REINSTATEMENT OF JOHN 

ANTHONY MOODY TO THE BAR 

OF MARYLAND

*

*

*

*

*

*

 IN THE

 SUPREME COURT

 OF MARYLAND

 AG No. 45

 September Term, 2023 

ORDER

Upon consideration of attorney John Anthony Moody’s petition for reinstatement

to the Bar of Maryland and Bar Counsel’s consent to that relief, it is this 22nd day of April

2024, by the Supreme Court of Maryland,

ORDERED that the petition is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that John Anthony Moody is reinstated as a member of the Bar of 

Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the name John Anthony Moody

upon the register of attorneys entitled to practice law in this State and certify that fact to 

the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in this 

State. 

/s/ Matthew J. Fader

Chief Justice