alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6656

KEIARRE LAJOHN BAKER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:17

- cv - 00653

- MSD

- DEM )

Submitted : October 31, 2018 Decided: November 9, 2018

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Keiarre LaJohn Baker , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Keiarre LaJohn Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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 certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing o f 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 th e constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner
must demonstrate both that the d ispositive 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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Baker has not made the requisite sh owing. 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisiona l process.
DISMISSED
Order entered May 20, 2014

In The 

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

No. 05-14-00548-CV No. 05-14-00549-CV

IN RE RICKY VERA LOPEZ, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F04-505-78



### ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus. We DENY as moot relator’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis , although we

have considered the petiti on without payment of the mandamus filing fee. We ORDER that

relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
# ~si'0e AIRLIIIIES

July5, 2016
US Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 400 7" Street Southwest, Room PL-401 Washington D.C. 20590-0001 Reference: Alaska Airlines DocumentControl # 2016-1118 DOT Docket# FAA-2014-0200 Subject: Request for renewal of Exemption 11047 Warning: Any safety·related, secwrity~reiated and/orcommercial information in this document is considered proprietary and is exemptfrom disclosure underfederal law, including 49 U.S.C. 40115 and 40123, 14 CFR 193, 49 CFR 7.29 ond 5 U.S.C. 552(b), and applicable state laws. This document !s released with an expectation of confidential treatment. Oear Sir or Madam, Alaska Airlines, Inc., in accordance with the provisions of 14 CFR 11, SubpartA, petitions on behalf of itselffor an extension of Exemption 11047, which expires on September 30, 2016. As previously approved, Exemption 11047 grants Alaska Airlines relief from §119.49(a)(4)(ii) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations. The exemption allows Alaska Airlines to apply domestic and flag rules while conducting non-scheduled supplemental operationsto airports not listed in its Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) provided certain conditions and limitations are met. The conditions and circumstances in regard to public interest and equivalent level ofsafety, whichwarranted the origin.al grant of exemption, continue to exist. This exemption has been in use fortwo years with no known compromise to safety. In accordancewiththe provisions of14 CFR 11, Exceptionsto Publication ofSummary of Petition for Exemption, AlaskaAirlines requestthat afinding of good cause be madeforwaiving publication in the Federal Register. Delay in granting the requested extension would not be in the public interest. Alaska Airlines therefore requests that the publication and comment period be waived. As required by 14 CFR 11, asummary ofthis petition is attached. Please inform me ifyou require any additional information to evaluate or acton this petition. 

# :f/JiflJ

Anne Shaw Manager, Flight Operations Regulatory Compliance and Certificate Management
cc: John Ladner (electronic) John Hornibrook (electronic) Jim Winkelman (electronic)

PO Box 68900,Seattle, WA98168 P206.433.3200

# ~s,fo. AIRLINES



### Attachment 1- Summaryof Petition US Department ofTransportation Petition for Extension of Exemption 11047 July5, 2016 Summary Document# 2016·1118 

### Page 2 of2



### Alaska Airlines petitions for an exemption from §119.49(a)(4)(ii) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations. The exemption would allow Alaska Airlines to apply domestic and flag rules while conducting non-scheduled supplemental operations to airports not listed in its Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) provided certain conditions and limitations are met.

Warning: Any safety-related, security-related and/orcommercial information in this document is considered proprietary and is exempt from disclosu(e under federal law, including 49 U.S.C. 40115 and 40123, 14 CFR 193, 49CFR 7.29 and 5 U.S.C. 552{b), and applicable state laws. This documentis released with an expectation ofconfidential treatment.
#### Joseph P. Kissling, as Executor of Cathleen G. Hearn, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*William G. Hearn, Respondent.

Submitted January 5, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*564
      *George Rubenfeld*and *Joseph P. Kissling*for appellant.

*Gabriel Rubino*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cedric EASTER Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3605

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Filed: June 2, 2017

David A. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee .

Cedric Easter, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Cedric Easter pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, and now appeals the district court’s1 sentence of 240 months in prison. Easter’s counsel moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), argü-*466ing that the evidence at sentencing was insufficient to support the sentence; the district court erred in relying on inconsistent testimony and unsubstantiated facts; and the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Easter filed a *pro se*supplemental brief, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction .to accept his plea and impose sentence because the sentencing penalty provision, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), is ambiguous.

The issue raised in Easter’s *pro se*brief was not raised in the district court and is foreclosed by his guilty plea. A guilty plea forecloses all claims, even those labeled “jurisdictional,” except claims that, “on the face of the record the court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence.” United States v. Vaughan, 13 F.3d 1186, 1188 (8th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). Here, the district court obviously had power to accept the guilty plea and enter the conviction. Any challenge to application of the federal sentencing statutes then had to be raised at sentencing.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Easter entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); the argument falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Perison v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal' outside the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
#### Thos. Kitson, Resp’t, v. Sarah F. Blake, App’lt. The Same *v.*Fred’k D. Blake.

See 39 N. Y. State Rep., 45.

*Carlisle Norwood, Jr.,*for motion.

Motions to dismiss.

Appeals dismissed, with costs of appeals and ten dollars costs of the motion in each case.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6602 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6602

 To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating to the review 
             of the interagency dispute resolution process.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2023

Mr. McCormick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating to the review 
             of the interagency dispute resolution process.

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

SECTION 1. REVIEW OF INTERAGENCY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS.

    Section 1763(c) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 
4822(c)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``countries subject to a comprehensive 
        United States arms embargo,'' after ``matters relating to''; 
        and
            (2) by striking ``may be decided'' and inserting ``shall be 
        decided''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Clarence H. Rose, App’lt, v. Herbert S. Renton, Resp’t.

Appeal from order reversing an order denying motion to vacate an attachment from the city court.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.
I 

## RECORD OF EXPARTE CONTACT
AD DOCKET NUMBER: FAA-2010-9375- 

## 0'270
FAA EMPLOYEE CONTACTED (name, routing symbol): Christopher Alfano, ANE-171 contacted James Bender ofComair. DATE AND TIME OF CONTACT: June 10,2010 at II :00 AM EST TYPE OF CONTACT (phone call, formal or infonnal meeting, etc.): Phone Call. NAMES OF ALL PERSONS INVOLVED IN CONTACT, INCLUDING TITLES AND AFFILIATION: Mr. James Bender, Compliance Analyst, Comair Inc. Mr. Christopher Alfano, Aerospace Engineer, ANE-171 , FAA TOPIC(S) DISCUSSED (Be specific) Topics discussed were Comair comments presented inthe NPRM. Itwas difficult forthe FAA to fully interpret what the Comair request were. FAA requested Comair clearl~ explain their comments. Comair explained their three (3) request as: 1) Why isthe FAA moving MRM Part 1 items inPm12ofthe MRM since it is note structured to do so. 2) IfrAA's inlcnt isnot to move Part 1 ofthe MRM into Part 2, then FAA needs to look back atAD 2004- 22-08 comments, I 3) Add aprovision to paragraph (1)(1)to allow continuati9n ofpreviously issued ComairAMOCs for inspection ofBulkhead Checkvalvcs, until the exiting Checkvalvcs are discardsed per the required tasks. COMMITMENTS MADE BY FAAIDOT PERSONNEL: FAA will acknowledge via Final Rule. Were any documents discussed? (X) YES (attach copies or reference) ( ) No AD 2004-22-08 PREPARED BY: DATE:

THIS FORM IS TO BE PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOCKET FOR THE SUBJECT RULEMAKING ACTION.
R"visiun 1 16.1009
<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>                                  84,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,747
<BONDS>                                          1,517      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,140
<SALES>                                         17,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,915
<CGS>                                            5,279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (554)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,162)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,489
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,651)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,651)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)
        

</TABLE>
#### MABS, INC., d/b/a Lancer of California, Snap-Tab Corporation, and Leslie Riverview Realty Corporation, Appellants, v. PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 10525.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 6, 1966.

Decided Oct. 28, 1966.

George T. Mobille, Washington, D. C., and Ralph Bailey, Jr., Greenville, S. C. (Edward M. Prince and Cushman, Darby & Cushman, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellants.

Jesse Rothstein, New York City (Morton Amster, Amster & Rothstein, New York City, and Price & Poag, Green-ville, S. C., on brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

 In a carefully considered opinion, the district judge clearly demonstrated the invalidity of the patent. See Mabs, Inc. v. Piedmont Shirt Company, 248 F.Supp. 71 (W.D.S.C.1965). Commendably, he then went further and, assuming its validity, adjudged it not infringed. We agree on both aspects of the case, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district judge.

Affirmed.
#### IN RE: Curtis RICHARDSON, Petitioner.

No. 17-1616

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Curtis Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Richardson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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*
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

As of and for the year ended March 31,  2000,  pursuant  to Section  8.16 of the
Pooling and  Servicing  Agreement,  the  undersigned  on behalf of Centex Credit
Corporation  has performed the reviews of the activities of the Servicer  during
such preceding  fiscal year and of  performance  under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, for Centex Home Equity Loan Trust 1999-2 under my supervision.

To the best of my  knowledge,  based on such review,  the Servicer has fulfilled
all  obligations  under the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement for the fiscal year
above referenced.

Anthony H. Barone
President
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Bank.

This 31st day of March, 2003.

/s/ Monty G. Watson
--------------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer/Principal Executive Officer

/s/ Kelly J. Johnson
--------------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer/Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

                                       49
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50971 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTONIO PUENTES-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-826-ALL-DB

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Antonio Puentes-Romero appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Puentes-Romero contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Puentes-Romero maintains that heNo. 03-50971 -2- pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Puentes-Romero acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29

May 21, 2001

Kal Raman

Dear Kal:

     On behalf of drugstore.com, inc. (the "Company"), we are pleased to confirm
your appointment to the position of President and Chief Executive Officer
effective April 26, 2001. You will report directly to the Company's Board of
Directors.

     You will receive an annual salary of $350,000, along with the Company's
standard employee benefits. Your salary will be paid in accordance with the
Company's standard payroll policies. You will be eligible to receive a bonus of
up to $350,000 annually, based upon the Company's performance. The exact bonus
formula will be determined by mutual agreement with you. In addition, you will
receive a $75,000 signing bonus upon your acceptance of this letter. You will
also receive a $25,000 bonus after one year, assuming your continued employment
with the Company. Your compensation package will be reviewed annually by the
Company's Board of Directors.

     You will be granted an option (the "Option") to purchase 1,000,000 shares
of drugstore.com, inc. common stock. The exercise price will be equal to the
fair market value of such shares on April 26, 2001, which was $1.53 per share.
The options will vest in equal monthly installments over a three-year period.
Vesting will depend upon your continued employment with the Company. The Option
will be subject to the terms of the Company's 1998 Stock Option Plan and the
related Stock Option Agreement between you and drugstore.com.

     All of us at the Company are very excited about your promotion and look
forward to continuing a beneficial and rewarding relationship. Nevertheless,
your employment at drugstore.com may be terminated by you or drugstore.com at
any time for any reason with or without cause or notice.

     This letter supercedes and replaces the Employment Offer Letter between you
and the Company dated July 28, 1998. The terms of this offer letter may only be
changed by written agreement, although the Company may from time to time, in its
sole discretion, adjust the salaries and benefits paid to you and its other
employees.

     Should you have any questions with regard to any of the items indicated
above, please contact Alesia Pinney. Kindly indicate your consent to the terms
contained in this offer letter by signing and returning a copy to us by May 25,
2001.


Sincerely,

drugstore.com, inc.


/s/ Peter Neupert
--------------------------
Peter Neupert
Chairman


Agreed to and accepted:

/s/ Kal Raman                                   Date:  May __, 2001
--------------------------
Kal Raman