alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Christopher ODEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7680

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 7, 2017

Decided: May 5, 2017

*228Christopher Oden, Appellant Pro Se,

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher William Oden, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Oden v. Wilson, No. 3:15-cv-00196-JAG-RCY, 2016 WL 183469, 2016 WL 6634883 (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2016 *&*Nov. 8, 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.

AFFIRMED

*

 We have construed Oden's March 9, 2016 motion for a certificate of appealability as a timely notice of appeal from the district court's order denying his § 2241 petition. See Marmolejo v. United States, 196 F.3d 377, 378 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that motion for certificate of appealability should be treated as notice of appeal).
#### James SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nurse WILLIAMS; LT. Green, Defendants-Appellees, and Frank L. Perry; George T. Solomon; Dr. Paula Smith; Ms. Lynch; Vincent Ramsey; Mr. Forrest; John Does, 1-100; Jane Does, 1-100, Defendants.

No. 16-7249

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

James Solomon, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Solomon appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in Solomon’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Solomon v. Williams, No. 5:15-ct-03028-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 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.

AFFIRMED
#### James J. BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7551

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

James J. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James J. Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifí-cate 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 Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brooks’ motion for a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this *257court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Amendment to Amended and Restated Grant Agreement Relating to Unit-Based Awards



 Exhibit 10.6 
 Constellation Energy Partners LLC 
 2009 Omnibus Incentive Compensation
Plan 
 Amendment to Amended and Restated Grant Agreement Relating to 

Unit-Based Awards—Executives 
 Grantee: 
 Amendment Date: April 26, 2012 

1. Amendment to Grant Agreement. 
 (a) Grant Agreement. Constellation Energy Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), has granted to you certain UBAs under the Plan on the terms and
conditions set forth that certain Amended and Restated Grant Agreement Relating to Unit-Based Awards – Executives dated May 16, 2011, by and between you and the Company (“Grant Agreement”). Capitalized terms used in this
Amendment but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Grant Agreement. 
 (b) Amendment.
The term “CEG Ownership Event” in the Grant Agreement is hereby replaced with the term “PostRock Ownership Event.” 
 2. Binding Effect. The Grant Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any successor or successors of the Company and upon any person lawfully
claiming under Grantee. 
 3. Entire Agreement and Amendment. The Grant Agreement, as amended by this Amendment,
constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with regard to the subject matter hereof, and contains all the covenants, promises, representations, warranties and agreements between the parties with respect to the UBAs granted therein. 

4. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware,
without regard to conflicts of laws principles thereof. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Amendment to be effective as of April 26, 2012. 
  

							
	Constellation Energy Partners LLC	  	Grantee
				
	By:	  	 	  	By:	  	 
				
	Name:	  	 	  	Name:	  	 
				
	Title:	  	 	  	Title:
Jana KRAJNAK, Appellant, v. Peter KRAJNAK, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1987

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Brian Edward MALNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG, (BMW AG); et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16296

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Brian Edward Malnes, Pro Se

Curtis James Busby, Esquire, Attorney, Paul Gerard Cereghini, Esquire, Attorney, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees Bayerische Mo-toren Werke AG, BMW of North America, Jay Hanson, Michael Discepolo, Ryan Cram

James D. Bayard, Onebane Law Firm, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants-Appellees Moss Motors BMW D, Shane Sloane, James Carrier, Sharon Moss, Richard Foard, Bob Landsman

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Malnes’ request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM ***

Brian Edward Malnes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging violations of federal and state law related to his car battery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Gingery v. City of Glendale,*831 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record. *Lake Wash. Sch. Dist. No. 414 v. Office of Superintendent of Pub. Instruction,*634 F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

Dismissal of Malnes’ action was proper because venue in the District of Arizona was improper. Malnes has not established that all defendants are residents of Arizona or that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [his] elaim[s]” occurred in Arizona. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) & (2) (describing where a civil action may be brought).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/24 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.44 N 77.04 WMeters AGL
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Walter Alexander Ejcalon XALCUT, also known as Chapin, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20593 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Walter Alexander Ejcalon Xalcut, Pro Se

Before PRADO, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

*364PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Walter Alexander Ej calón Xalcut 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). Ejcal-on Xalcut 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 Cíe. 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.
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL OP-OFA-005]

*Responsible Agency:*                     Office of Federal Activities, General Information 202-564-5632 or                     *https://www.epa.gov/​nepa.*

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

Filed February 14, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through February 18, 2022 10 a.m. EST 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

*Notice:*                     Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/​cdx-enepa-public/​action/​eis/​search.*

*EIS No. 20220018, Final, CHSRA, CA,*                     California High-Speed Rail: San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement,  Review Period Ends: 03/28/2022, Contact: Scott Rothenberg 916-403-6936.                

*EIS No. 20220019, Final, DOD, ID,*                     Construction and Demonstration of a Prototype Mobile Microreactor,  Review Period Ends: 03/28/2022, Contact: Jeff Waksman 703-812-1980.                

*EIS No. 20220020, Final, USFS, CA,*                     Social and Ecological Resilience Across the Landscape (SERAL),  Review Period Ends: 03/28/2022, Contact: Kathryn Wilkinson 209-288-6321.                

Dated: February 18, 2022.

Cindy S. Barger,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2022-03999 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### KELIIHULUHULU, AKA Alfred Napahuelua Spinney, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elizabeth Ann STRANCE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16515

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 5, 2017

Keliihuluhulu, Pro Se

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Keliihuluhulu, a.k.a, Alfred Napahuelua Spinney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. *Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,*356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Because the record shows that Keliihu-luhulu stood on his complaint, the district *407court abused its discretion in converting its dismissal with leave to amend into a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failing to comply with a court order. *See Edwards,*356 F.3d at 1064-65 (dismissal under Rule 41(b) is not appropriate where the plaintiff makes an affirmative choice not to amend the complaint).

Nevertheless, the district court properly dismissed Keliihuluhulu’s action as barred by judicial immunity. *See Duvall v. County of Kitsap,*260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (judges are generally immune from suit for money damages). Because we affirm on the basis of judicial immunity, we do not consider Keliihuluhulu’s contention regarding the district court’s application of the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Keliihuluhulu leave to amend his claims to the extent that they were barred by judicial immunity because amendment would have been futile. *See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc.,*912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied where amendment would be futile).

We reject as without merit Keliihuluhu-lu’s. contentions that he is not subject to the laws of the United States or the state of Hawaii.

We do not consider the supplemental evidence that Keliihuluhulu has filed because the submitted evidence was submitted for the first time on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**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 Luna Technologies International,
        Inc.
        (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        “Report”), I, Kimberly Landry, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
        of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 25, 2006
 */s/ Kimberly Landry*
 Kimberly
        Landry
 Chief
        Executive Officer
**CERTIFICATE      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or                78o(d)) and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                as of the dates and for the periods covered by the                Report. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May                14, 2008 |   | /s/                David M. Bradley          |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated                       |        | David                M. Bradley              |   |
|                        |   | Chairman,                President & CEO |   |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fletcher FREEMAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-31029 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

*141Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Fletcher Freeman, Jr., Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fletcher Freeman, Jr., 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). Freeman 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monte G. HOFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30374

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 18, 2017 Seattle, Washington

Filed June 02, 2017

*396Michael J. Fica, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPO—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Pocatello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jonathon David Hallin, Attorney, Lukins & Annis, P.S., Coeur d’Alene, ID, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Monte Hoffman (“Hoffman”) appeals from his conviction of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) as well as destruction of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361. On appeal, Hoffman only challenges the denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence. He contends that Trooper Edgley (“Edgley”) of the Idaho State Police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by unconstitutionally prolonging his traffic stop without reasonable suspicion to do so. Edgley stopped Hoffman for a traffic violation, which ultimately led to the discovery of methamphetamine on Hoffman's person. After the district court denied Hoffman’s motion, he proceeded to trial, and, as noted earlier, was found guilty of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine, and destruction of government property.

Neither the district court nor the parties had the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Rodriguez v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015), nor our decision in *United States v. Evans,*786 F.3d 779 (9th Cir. 2015), applying Ro*driguez,*when the court heard arguments and ruled on Hoffman’s motion. As a result, we vacate the judgment and sentence and remand to the district court for the purpose of reconsidering Hoffman’s suppression motion in light of the intervening case law. On remand, the parties may file supplemental briefs, and the district court may take additional evidence if warranted. After the district court issues a new ruling as contemplated by Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court shall take whatever action it deems appropriate with regard to the sentence and judgment. We express no views on any of the issues raised in Hoffman’s suppression motion and all of the Fourth Amendment issues addressed in the motion may be raised in any subsequent appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Donald Allen HIBBARD, Appellant, v. Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, Appellee.

No. 20839.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 18, 1966.

Donald Allen Hibbard, in pro. per.

Robt. Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen. of Or., David H. Blunt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., for appellee.

Before BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks relief through his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because of the alleged unconstitutionality of 0. R.S. 163.250 (assault with a dangerous weapon), a felony, by reason of the existence of O.R.S. 163.320 (pointing a gun at another), a misdemeanor. Appellant urges that the two statutes cover one act. Appellee asserts the two statutes define two separate and distinct acts and crimes.

Since this petition was originally ordered filed on March 23, 1965, in the United States District Court of Oregon, the Supreme Court of Oregon, on September 8, 1965, ruled there exists a rational distinction between the acts denounced in O.R.S. 163.250 and O.R.S. 163.320, and that two distinct and separate criminal acts are proscribed. Rose v. Gladden, 241 Or. 202, 405 P.2d 543. See also State of Oregon v. Baker, 81 Or. adv. sh. 747, 408 P.2d 928, decided December 15, 1965.

The Oregon Supreme Court ruling interpreting the difference between the two statutes is binding precedent for this court.

Affirmed.