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

No. 16-10231 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 25, 2017

*392James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily Baker Falconer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Shaun Wesley Skinner, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Shaun Wesley Skinner appeals the 151-month, within-guidelines prison sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery and attempted bank robbery. He contends that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender, maintaining that his two prior robbery convictions were related and thus should not have counted separately for purposes of the career offender Guideline. However, Skinner committed the second robbery after he was arrested for the first. Thus, he had two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence whose sentences were counted separately under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(a), (b), or (c). *See*U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.2(a)(2), (k), 4Bl.l(a), 4B1.2(c). That he was sentenced for both robberies on the same day is irrelevant, *See United States v. Akins,*746 F.3d 590, 611 (5th Cir. 2014). Moreover, contrary to Skinner’s assertion, § 4Al.l(e) has no bearing on the analysis because his robbery sentences were not treated as a single sentence.

The district court did not err in sentencing Skinner as a career offender. The judgment 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 4, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00867-CV TYLER DURDEN, Appellant V. WATERTON ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-07819

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Schenck, and Justice Osborne Opinion by Justice Schenck By unopposed motion filed April 18, 2022, appellant asserts all issues and

controversies in this matter ha ve been resolved and asks the appeal be dismissed.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

210867F.P05 /David J. Schenck / DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

TYLER DURDEN, Appellant

No. 05-21-00867-CV V.

WATERTON ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-07819. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, Chief Justice Burns and Justice Osborne participating.

In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered May 4, 2022.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6810 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6810

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in Sebring, Florida, as the ``U.S. Army 
       Air Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2023

Mr. Scott Franklin of Florida (for himself, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Posey, 
 Mr. Donalds, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Waltz, Mr. Rutherford, 
   Mr. Steube, Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida, Ms. Salazar, Mr. Bean of 
 Florida, Mrs. Cammack, and Mrs. Luna) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in Sebring, Florida, as the ``U.S. Army 
       Air Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. U.S. ARMY AIR CORPS MAJOR THOMAS B. MCGUIRE POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in Sebring, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``U.S. Army Air Corps Major Thomas B. 
McGuire Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``U.S. Army 
Air Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
497 A.2d 483

#### Keith K. JACKSON v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 90,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 13, 1985.

Before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Court having considered and granted the petition for writ of certiorari, in the above entitled case, it is this 13th day of September, 1985

*45ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated and the case remanded to that Court for reconsideration, in light of *Walczak. v. State,*302 Md. 422, 488 A.2d 949 (1985). Costs to be paid by the appellee.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6461

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DARREN L. KEYS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:98-cr-00144-CCB-1; 1:07-cv-02049-CCB) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darren L. Keys, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The motion was titled “Emergency Motion for Correction of Court’s Records to Clarify Case Number Given to First and Only § 2255 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(a) and Fed. R. Cr. P. 36 and Privacy Act Under 5 USC § 552a and 60(b).” (R. 78). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Darren L. Keys seeks to appeal the district court’s marginal order denying relief on his “motion” *filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Keys has not made the requisite showing. 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*William A. Youell, Appellant.

Submitted October 11, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*William A. Youell,*in person, for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion denied on the ground that appellant’s appeal has not been heard on the merits in the Appellate Division and that the order of that court refusing appellant permission to use typed papers there is not appealable.
**SPAR Group, Inc.**

 

EXHIBIT 32.2

**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the six-month period ended June 30, 2008 (this “report”), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the “registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

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.         The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

 

|   | /s/ James R. SegretoJames R. SegretoChief Financial Officer, Treasurer andSecretaryAugust 14, 2008 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

 

 

Ex-4
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10329 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERNEST VERA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CR-94-A-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Ernest Vera has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### John Alfred PANZER I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16942

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017*

Filed July 17, 2017

John Alfred Panzer, I, Pro Se

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

John Alfred Panzer I appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, *McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Panzer’s action for failure to comply with Rule 8 because the second amended complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement of the claims showing that [Panzer] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. 8(a)(2), (d)(1); *McHenry,*84 F.3d at 1174 (affirming dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]ro-lix, confusing complaints ... impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Panzer’s second amended complaint without leave to amend because Panzer was provided with two opportunities to amend and further amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth *677standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); *Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., Inc.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is particularly broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Panzer’s motion for transcripts, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Gregory C. Talbott is the Executive VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the"Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with thefiling by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

> - 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
- 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.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit tothe Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as theReport is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

| August 14, 2002
 

/s/ Gregory C. Talbott
Dated 
Gregory C. Talbott |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marion Shawn ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6412

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 9, 2017

Decided: August 18, 2017

Marion Shawn Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Scheming, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marion Shawn Anderson has filed a du-plicative notice of appeal from his September 29, 2000 criminal judgment. We previously dismissed Anderson’s first notice of appeal under 4th Cir. R. 45. *See United States v. Anderson,*No. 00-4734 (4th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000) (unpublished order). Anderson’s second notice of appeal was dismissed as untimely. *United States v. Anderson,*22 Fed.Appx. 309 (4th Cir. 2001) (No. 01-4518). Because this is Anderson’s third notice of appeal from the same criminal judgment, we dismiss the appeal as duplicative. 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*
2013 Director Compensation Program


 Exhibit 10.3 
 2013 Director Compensation Program 
  

																	
	  	  	Tier 
0
Employee
Director	 	  	Tier
1
Independent
Director	 	  	Tier
2
Nominating and Compensation
Committee Chairperson	 	  	Tier
3
Audit Committee
and Board
Chairperson	 
	 Base Compensation
	  	$	0	  	  	$	80,000	  	  	$	92,500	  	  	$	100,000	  
	 Restricted Stock Shares
	  	 	0	  	  	 	2,000	  	  	 	2,500	  	  	 	2,500	  

 Notes: 
  

	 	1.	Meeting attendance is expected to be at or near a 100% level. 

  

	 	2.	Pay Tiers: Tier 0 is for Directors who are full-time employees, Tier 1 is for Directors who do not chair committees, Tier 2 is for Nominating and Compensation Committee
Chairpersons, and Tier 3 is for Audit Committee and Board Chairpersons. A Chairperson of any other committee will be paid at the highest tier otherwise eligible, according to the specifically named functions above. All Directors are only paid at one
tier (and not multiple tiers), which is their highest eligible tier. 

  

	 	3.	Each Director is to be awarded shares of restricted common stock upon election or re-election to the Board. The restricted stock will be issued according to the
standard form of the Company’s approved Restricted Stock Agreement and will carry a restriction requiring that they vest in 2 equal installments over 2 consecutive years with the vesting dates being the annual meeting dates of the shareholders
following the Director’s election or re-election. The vesting of the restricted stock granted to a Director accelerates if a Director is terminated early or not re-elected to the Board. Restricted stock shall be granted on a pro-rata basis for
Directors elected to serve less than a full year. No voting or dividend rights apply to the restricted stock until such shares are issued. It is understood that the quantity of shares represented by the restricted stock listed above will adjust
pro-rata with any stock splits that may occur after the plan is approved. 

  

	 	4.	All Directors must own a minimum of 2,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock on the open market, which must be retained as long as they are a director. New
Directors have 9 months in which to acquire such Common Stock. 

  

	 	5.	Base compensation shall be paid quarterly.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of Commonwealth Bancorp, Inc. (the
Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Form 10-Q for the three
months ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ Charles M. Johnston       
|                              
|Name: Charles M. Johnston     
|Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 6, 2002
#### Karen FUJITA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-70050

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 26, 2017

Karen Fujita, Pro Se

Anthony T. Sheehan, Esquire, Attorney, Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Karen Fujita appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s collection action for the 2003 and 2009 tax years. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. *Sollberger v. Comm’r,*691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because the settlement officer did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the proposed collection action for tax years 2003 and 2009. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (setting forth matters an appeals officer must consider in making a determination to sustain a proposed collection action); 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) (a taxpayer may challenge the underlying tax liability only “if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency ... or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability”).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Fujita’s contentions challenging the validity of the underlying tax assessments.

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

We reject as meritless Fujita’s contentions concerning sanctions and violations of due process.

Fujita’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          14,393
<SECURITIES>                                    17,280
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,846
<PP&E>                                          14,571
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,747
<BONDS>                                          1,517
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,759
<SALES>                                         17,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,915
<CGS>                                            4,811
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,854
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (554)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,804
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,489
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                315
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       315
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        





</TABLE>