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

No. 15-30394

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*581Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Lang, Brian Wer-ner, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle,. WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Steven Allen McCracken, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and’ OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Steven Allen McCracken appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his motions for recusal and a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

McCracken contends that then-Chief Judge Pechman erred by affirming Judge Leighton’s denial of McCracken’s recusal motion. McCracken argues that Judge Leighton’s remarks concerning methamphetamine reflected a deep-seated antagonism toward him and his case. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. *See United States v. McTiernan,*695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012). The nature of the drug involved in McCracken’s offense was an appropriate sentencing consideration, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and the record does not otherwise reflect that Judge Leighton harbored antagonism towards McCracken or was biased against him. *See McTiernan,*695 F.3d at 891-92.

McCracken also argues that the court should have granted his new trial motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1). To warrant a new trial, the mov-ant must satisfy a five-part test. *See United States v. Kulczyk,*931 F.2d 542, 548 (9th Cir. 1991). The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that McCracken did not meet that test. *See id.*The evidence concerning McCracken’s relationship with his business partner was cumulative of evidence that was presented • at trial, the lab report was not new evidence and McCracken was not diligent in obtaining it, and neither piece of evidence indicated that “a new trial would probably result in acquittal,” *Id.*

McCracken’s motion for an extension of time to file his reply brief is denied as moot. McCracken’s reply brief was filed on September 1,2016, and considered.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
J-A20023-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER ZIEMBA

Appellant No. 60 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered December 13, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-66-CR-0000324-2013

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2018

A jury convicted Appellant, Christopher Ziemba, of open lewdness, 

indecent exposure, stalking, and two counts of disorderly conduct. The trial 

court sentenced him to an aggregate term of imprisonment of eight to 23 1⁄2 

months of imprisonment, to be followed by twelve months of probation on 

January 14, 2015. This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence by order 

dated March 16, 2016.

On November 21, 2016, Ziemba filed a pro se motion entitled 

“Defendant’s Motion for Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel and a New 

Trial.” The trial court dismissed the motion, and Ziemba filed this pro se 

appeal.

Ziemba filed the November 21, 2016, motion after his judgment of 

sentence had become final. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113 (petition for allowance of 
J-A20023-17

- 2 -

appeal from Superior Court order must be filed within 30 days); 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

9545(b)(3) (judgment of sentence becomes final at expiration of time for 

seeking review). Furthermore, his motion alleged ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel.

Under these circumstances, his motion should have been treated as 

petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). See 

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 467-468 (Pa. Super. 2013)

(finding “untimely post-sentence motion filed after finality of judgment is to 

be treated as a PCRA petition,” if it raises issues cognizable under the 

PCRA). We therefore remand for an assessment of Ziemba’s claims pursuant 

to the PCRA.

We note the court denied Ziemba’s petition for in forma pauperis

status. Ziemba has challenged this denial on appeal and asserted that his 

employment status changed as of January 1, 2017. In light of our remand, 

we direct the PCRA court to determine whether Ziemba currently qualifies as 

indigent and, if so, appoint him counsel. See Commonwealth v. Stossel, 

17 A.3d 1286, 1290 (Pa. Super. 2011). Furthermore, we deny, as moot, the 

Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss Ziemba’s appeal due to defects in his 

brief.

Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with 

this order. Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss is denied. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.
J-A20023-17

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/09/2018
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Paul E. Martin, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofCharter Communications Holdings, LLC and CharterCommunications Holdings Capital Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrants as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to theregistrants, including their consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities,particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b)  [Reserved];  (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d)  Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrants’ internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred duringthe registrants’ most recent fiscalquarter (the registrants’ fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect,the registrants’ internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5.  The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to theregistrants’ auditors and the audit committee of theregistrants’ board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrants’ ability torecord, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in theregistrants’ internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: March 31, 2005   /s/ Paul E. Martin    Paul E. Martin  Interim Co-Chief Financial Officer  (Co-Principal Financial Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricky Lee PIMIENTA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41685 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 4, 2017

Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern Dis- ■ trict of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ricky Lee Pimienta, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricky Lee Pimienta 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). Pimienta has filed a response and a motion for appointment of counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Pimienta’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record' reflected therein, as well as Pimienta’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Pimienta’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cm. 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.
* 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. 96-10417

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

HARRY DEAN HAYNES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Dep’t of Criminal

Justice, Institutional Division; RAYMOND

VILLARREAL; CANALAS, LVN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(5:95-CV-183-BA)

November 21, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that the motion by Harry Dean Haynes for

reinstatement of his appeal is GRANTED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that

Haynes’ motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is

GRANTED. See Haynes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1997).
-2-

Haynes argues that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to

enter final judgment. In light of Haynes’ written consent to

proceed to judgment before the magistrate judge, the magistrate

judge had jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532

(5th Cir. 1995).

Haynes argues that the magistrate judge abused his discretion

by dismissing Haynes’ suit with prejudice for want of prosecution.

There is indication in the record that the clerk of the court’s

office had Haynes’ then-current address, although his change-ofaddress letter was not filed in the case. Moreover, there is

nothing in the record indicating that the magistrate judge

considered a lesser sanction before dismissing with prejudice.

Under these circumstances, the magistrate abused his discretion by

dismissing Haynes’ suit with prejudice for want of prosecution.

See McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 789-93 (5th Cir. 1988).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is VACATED and the

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.
Chey Lindsey GARRIGAN v. Jacob Lynn SIMPKINS

2150908

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

We have issued ourreports dated April 2, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedules and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of eCollege.comand Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.  We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of said reports in the Registration Statements of eCollege.com and Subsidiarieson Form S-3 (File No. 333-108501, effective September 4, 2003) and on Form S-8(File No. 333-34326, April 7, 2000).
|                    | /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP |   |
|--------------------|------------------------|--------|
|               |
| Chicago, Illinois  |
| April 2, 2007 |

 

----
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

** 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

 

**AND EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OptionCare, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the“Report”), we, Rajat Rai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and PaulMastrapa, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadoped pursuant to Secion 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and ExchangeAct Rule 13a-14(b) that:

 

(1)     ThisReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date: August 9, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Rajat Rai                                                     |   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | Rajat Rai  Chief Executive Officer                                |   |
|                 |   |                                                              |   |
|                 |   |                                                              |   |
| Date: August 9, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Paul Mastrapa                                                 |   |
|                 |   | Paul Mastrapa  Senior Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |   |

 

1

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph D. PRONNETTE, Jr., also known as Joseph D. Pronnette, also known as Joseph Pronnette, also known as Joseph Pronnette, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-30976 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 27, 2017

Carol Mignonne Griffing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Middle *&*Western Districts of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Joseph D. Pronnette, Jr.; pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, and the district court varied from the guidelines range and sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Pronnette now argues that the district court’s initial guidelines computations were in error because it assigned a base offense level of 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2,l(a)(4) based on its conclusion that Pronnette’s prior Louisiana conviction of domestic abuse aggravated assault was a conviction for a crime of violence. Pronnette contends that the district court erred in that conclusion and that his base offense level should have been 14. He further argues that, because the district court did not consider the correct guidelines range before varying, the error was not harmless.

We need not resolve the erime-of-vio-lence issue if any error in the district court’s application of the guidelines was harmless. *See United States v. Groce,*784 F.3d 291, 296 (5th Cir. 2015). Harmless errors are those which “did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.” *United States v. Garcia-Figueroa,*753 F.3d 179, 192 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] non-Guideline sentence does not result from the district court’s miscalculation of the Guideline range if the district court: (1) contemplated the correct Guideline range in its analysis and (2) stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even if that range applied.” *United States v. Duhon,*541 F.3d 391, 396 (5th Cir. 2008).

As in *United States v. Bonilla,*524 F.3d 647, 656 (5th Cir. 2008), the only aspect of the guidelines calculations in dispute at the time of his sentencing was the crime-of-violence determination. The district court specifically considered both the guidelines range produced by Pronnette’s computations and the guidelines range produced by its own computations and concluded that neither range was sufficient. Thus, the record reflects that the sentence selected by *269the district court did not result from a miscalculation of Pronnette’s guidelines range of imprisonment. *See id.*at 656-57. Any error was therefore harmless. *See Duhon,*541 F.3d at 396, The judgment of the district court is 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. 47.5.4.
457 A.2d 579

#### Ferber v. American Lamp, et al., Appellants. Ferber, Appellant v. Cohen, et al.

Reargument Denied March 1, 1983.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Granted April 14, 1983.

Argued September 29, 1982.

E. Baum, for appellants (at No. 2781) and for appellees (at No. 2934); Joseph A. Prim, Jr., for appellant (at No. 2934) and for appellee (at No. 2781).

Before SPAETH, WICKERSHAM and CIRILLO, JJ.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

The order of the lower court is affirmed.
Gregory Lynn OGLES v. Angela MCCLINTOCK, Cheraton Huff, Iris Johnson, Tracy Eubanks, Tina Dollar, Pam Granger, and Tamika Johnson

2160591

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Form 10-KSB of Accufacts Pre-Employment
Screening Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Report"), Philip Luizzo, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   to my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) or 15(d) of he 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/ PHILIP LUIZZO
-----------------

Philip Luizzo

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

April 10, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by 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 Accufacts Pre-Employment
Screening, Inc. and will be retained by Accufacts Pre-Employment Screening and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EPRI TCLP Results FGD Gypsum
Sample ID 213 216 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 pH 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.4 6.6 5.9 6.4 6.0 4.9 Ag mg/L <0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017 <0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017 <0.017 As mg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.023 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Ba mg/L 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Cd mg/L <0.0037<0.0037<0.0037<0.0037<0.0037<0.0037<0.0037 0.00 0.01 <0.0037<0.0037 Cr mg/L <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 Pb mg/L <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 Se mg/L <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 0.1
Hg ug/L 0.107 0.033 0.055 0.022 0.096 0.037 0.022 0.018 0.022 0.018 0.029EPRI TCLP Results FGD Gypsum
Sample ID pH Ag mg/L As mg/L Ba mg/L Cd mg/L Cr mg/L Pb mg/L Se mg/L
Hg ug/L 232 233 234 235 237 238 239 240 244 245 247 5.3 5.1 5.0 6.4 5.9 6.0 6.3 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.9 <0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017 <0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

0.03 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 <0.0037<0.0037<0.0037 0.01 <0.0037 0.00 <0.0037<0.0037<0.0037<0.0037<0.0037 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062

0.3 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089

0.022 0.029 0.018 0.022 0.015 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.015EPRI TCLP Results FGD Gypsum
Sample ID pH Ag mg/L As mg/L Ba mg/L Cd mg/L Cr mg/L Pb mg/L Se mg/L
Hg ug/L 248 251 253 255 260 269 270 296 298 304 5.3 5.6 5.7 4.9 5.4 6.4 7.2 7.3 5.0 6.4 <0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017 <0.017<0.017<0.017<0.017 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.05 <0.0037 0.00 <0.0037<0.0037<0.0037<0.0037<0.0037<0.0037<0.0037 0.01 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 0.4 0.3 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089

0.022 0.022 0.022 0.011 NA 0.581 0.033 0.022 0.015 0.018
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


REGION '" 


1650 Arch Street 


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 


Mr '1 . David K. Paylor, Director DC. al' 

Department ofEnvironmental Quality 

629 E. Main Street 

Ric~ond, Virginia 23218 

Dear Mr. Paylor: 

On November 1,2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a 

revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (V ADEQ). This SIP -revision consists of a new Chapter 85 (Pennits for 

Stationary Sources of Pollutants Subject to Regulation), which implements the greenhouse gas 

pennitting provisions of 40 CFR 51.166 as promulgated on June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31514). EPA 

has detennined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing 

it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) action. 

If members ofyour staff have any questions, they may direct them toMr. David Talley, 

Office of Pennits and Air Toxics, at (215) 814-2117. He is the principal contact for this 

rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474