alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Darrell Deon HARRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7328

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2017

Decided: May 1, 2017

*315Darrell Deon Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Deon Harrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harrison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRYAN CURTIS ROCHA,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00352

- CR

Appeal from the

211th Judicial District Court

of Denton County, Texas

(TC# F

- 2010

- 0925

- C)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
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 Blockbuster Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended January 4, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
I, James W. Keyes, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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: April 6, 2009

/s/ James W. KeyesJames W. Keyes Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
exhibit10_7.htm






Exhibit 10.7







April 17, 2012







StanTusman












Dear Stan:







The 2012 bonus plan reflects the goals for our company this coming year.  Your bonus is based on pre-tax profit for the company in 2012.








	
35.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$               1


	
42.50%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$1,000,000


	
50.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$2,000,000


	
62.50%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$3,000,000


	
75.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$4,000,000












In addition, you will earn 12.5% of your cumulative salary if, in the opinion of the Compensation Committee, you meet the goals outlined in the document provided to you separately and the company makes a pre-tax profit of at least $1.







I will send a quarterly update in conjunction with our earnings announcement to update you on the performance of the company versus the bonus plan.







The 2012 bonus period covers the fiscal months of February 2012 through January 2013.  You must be an active employee of Bakers Footwear Group at the time the bonus is paid to be eligible to receive your bonus.







Sincerely,






















Peter Edison


ss
#### Cris Fabiola CANALES-REYES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2160

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 13, 2017

Decided: April 26, 2017

John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Meadow Platt, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

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

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Canales-Reyes*(B.I.A. Sept. 9, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### PEOPLE *v.*CROW.

*,1.*Criminal *Law*— Due Process — Bight to Counsel — Waiver of Counsel.

Defendant’s waiver of counsel at his arraignment obviates any necessity of advising defendant of the same right at the time of sentencing.

2. Same — Due Process — Jury Trial — Waiver—Express Waiver.

Trial by jury need not be expressly waived where defendant has been fully advised of his constitutional rights, after which he makes a voluntary plea of guilty.

3. Same — Due Process — Information.

Defendant' was properly informed of the accusation against him in compliance with court rule where the court read a definitive information, related to the defendant the maximum statutory punishment, and after the plea questioned defendant concerning the circumstances and execution of the crime (GCR 1963, 785.3 [2]).

References for Points in Headnotes

[1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 316.,

[2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 219.

[3] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 325.

Appeal from Kent, Vander Wal (John H.), J.

Submitted Division 3 October 3, 1968, at Marquette.

(Docket No. 3,978.)

Decided October 21, 1968.

Michael Dean Crow was convicted on plea of guilty of possession of a switchblade knife. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *James K. Miller,*
      *595Prosecuting Attorney, and *Wesley J. Nykamp,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Arthur B. Snell,*for defendant on appeal.

Per Curiam.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a switchblade knife.' CLS 1961, § 750.226a (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.423 [1]). We summarily resolve the issues raised by. the following statements:

(1) A waiver of counsel on arraignment obviates any necessity of advising defendant of the same right at the time of sentencing. , .

(2) Trial by jury need not he expressly waived where defendant has been fully advised of his constitutional rights, after which he voluntarily pleads guilty. *See People*v. *Hobdy*(1968), 380 Mich 686.

(3) Defendant was properly informed of the accusation against him, in substantial compliance with GCR 1963, 785.3(2), where the court read a definitive information, related to defendant the' maximum statutory punishment, and after the plea questioned the defendant concerning the circumstances and execution of the crime. *People*v. *Lang*(1968), 9 Mich App 635.

Affirmed.

T. G. Kavanagh, P. J., and McGregor and Philip C. Elliott, JJ., concurred.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

February 25, 2022; 10:30 a.m.

# PLACE:

This meeting will be held by video-conference only.

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Discussion of West Coast Marine Terminal Operator Agreement (WCMTOA).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

William Cody, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.

William Cody,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-03858 Filed 2-18-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6894

PATRICK NICOLE SCOTT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-3491-4-24BH) Submitted: August 5, 2003 Decided: August 18, 2003 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Nicole Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Patrick Scott, a South Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Scott that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Scott failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Scott has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of E. W. GURR, Trustee, Plaintiff v. FANUA E. GURR, TEUILA D. F. GURR and BERNARD GURR Defendants

No. 6-1915 

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division. [Land: “Maloloa”]

November 12, 1913 

C.D.STEARNE and ALEX STRONACH

DECREE OF COURT

This cause coming on to be heard by the High Court of American Samoa, and it appearing to the said Court from the sworn petition filed therein, and from the sworn answers filed by Fanua E. Gurr and C. V. McCarty, Pay Officer United States Naval Station, Tutuila, guardian ad litem for Teuila D. F. Gurr and Bernard Gurr, infants, that E. W. Gurr is trustee, and Fanua E. Gurr and Teuila D.'F. Gurr and Bernard Gurr are the cestui que trustents under certain deeds of trust, conveying certain real estate named in said petition, and that it is necessary for the care and preservation of said real estate and for the maintenance and support of the beneficiary Fanua E. Gurr and for the maintenance, support and education of the beneficiaries, Teuila D. F. Gurr and Bernard Gurr, that the interest of said beneficiaries in a part of said real estate be sold by said trustee:

*280Now therefore, it is ordered and adjudged by the said High Court that the said E. W. Gurr, trustee, be and he is hereby empowered and directed to sell at public auction or private sale, the right, title and interest of said beneficiaries in the lot or parcel of land particularly described in the petition, said tract or parcel of land being part of the land known as Maloloa, together with the dwelling-house situaated thereon and all other appurtenances thereto belonging; and said E. W. Gurr, trustee, is ordered to execute and deliver to the purchaser all necessary and proper deeds and conveyances to the right, title and interest of said beneficiaries in said parcel of land and the dwelling-house situated thereon; and the said E. W. Gurr, trustee, is authorized to receive the proceeds of said sale, and he is directed to expend so much of the same as, in his judgment is necessary for the care and preservation of the real estate named in the petition, for the support and maintenance of said Fanua E. Gurr and for the support, maintenance and education of the beneficiaries Teuila D. F. Gurr and Bernard Gurr, and to invest the residue of said proceeds, if any, for the benefit of said beneficiaries, paying the income derived from said investment to the beneficiaries in accordance with the deed of trust conveying to him the tract of land known as Maloloa. And said E. W. Gurr, trustee, is directed to file an annual account with the High Court of American Samoa showing in detail the expenditure and investment of the proceeds of said sale. And .this proceeding is retained for such further orders and decrees as to this court may seem necessary.
AFS-13-192-E February 14, 2013

Exemption No. 10705 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0085

Ms. Julie Gonik Parent of Maya Gonik

46 Redmonk Drive Thornhill, ON L4J 0B6

Dear Ms. Gonik:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received January 29, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Maya Gonik for an ex emption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Maya Gonik to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Maya Gonik.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using2

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Maya Gonik exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Maya Gonik is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Maya Gonik to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved CRS during use of that CRS aboard a U.S.

aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Maya Gonik’s parents or a caregiver accompanying her. Maya Gonik may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind her. In addition, Maya Gonik’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
Thomas E. MACKEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3081

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
CERTIFICATE  PURSUANT  TO  18  U.S.C.  SUBSECTION  1350

                              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  Quarterly  Report  of  Prime  Air,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of  the  undersigned  certifies,  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.

Dated  December  5,  2003            /s/  Blaine  Haug
                                   ------------------------------------
                                   Blaine  Haug
                                   President  and
                                   Chief  Executive  Officer


<PAGE>
# Record of Contacts
**FDMS Docket No. FAA**  **- 20**  **11 -**  **0042 Contacts.**  With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response T CCA Anthony Wan 5/6/09 No o bjection BA Alexandre

St
- Arnaud 5/6/09 No o bj ection Regional Airline Association (RAA) Connie Arnold ,

Manager Technical Services 5/6/09 No o bjection
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Christopher WEEKS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-30934 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/29/2016

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Christopher Weeks, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Proceeding pro se, James Christopher Weeks, federal prisoner # 14100-035, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Weeks, who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to 192 months of imprisonment, moved for a reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately explain its decision for *884denying him a reduction, despite the agreement by all parties that his sentence should be reduced, and by failing to take into consideration his rehabilitation efforts during his incarceration.

We review a district court’s decision “whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to ... § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion, ... its interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error.” *United States v. Henderson,*636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In deciding whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2), the district court must determine whether the defendant is eligible for a sentence modification. *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). If, the defendant is eligible, the district court must consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to decide whether a sentence reduction is merited in whole or in part under the specific circumstances of the case. *Id.*at 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

The district court acknowledged in its order that it considered the motion for reduction of sentence and “[took] into account the policy statement set forth at USSG § 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Although the order did not provide additional reasons for the decision, the record as a whole reflects that the district court “gave due consideration to the motion as a whole, and implicitly to the factors set forth in § 3553(a).” *Henderson,*636 F.3d at 718 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the district court satisfied its obligation to review the sentencing factors of § 3553(a). Any argument that the district court did not properly balance the sentencing factors is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995); *see also United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Weeks’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION 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.