alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HARRY JAMES WHITE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:01-

cr-00284-PJM; 8:06-cv-02984-PJM)

Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry James White, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla,

Assistant United States Attorney, James Marton Trusty, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Harry James White, Jr. seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion. 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 White 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cameran Arnold FLANAGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50864 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED May 5, 2017

REVISED May 8, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cameran Arnold Flanagan, Pro se.

Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s motion to reform the judgment dated August 20, 2015, by adding that the reduction in sen-*818tenee under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 also applies to reducing count 2 to 110 months, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ap-pellee’s motion to affirm the judgment as modified is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ap-pellee’s alternative motion for an extension to file its brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

*

 Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *818published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR. R. 47.5.4.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27

          Financial Data Schedule

 "This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from June 30, 2000 10QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements."
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUNE-30-2000
<CASH>                                              67,557
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      380,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,189,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                              49,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (1,388)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,181,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                             16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          1,562
<COMMON>                                            49,466
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,130,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,181,114
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       18,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     71,302
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 71,302
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        71,302
<EPS-BASIC>                                         .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .000


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cristian ESCARCEGA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-51090

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 17, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, Ken-heth P. Kaplan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Christian Escarcega was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and appeals denial of a motion to suppress evidence of the war-rantless search of his cell phone. We affirm.

This happened at the border between Mexico and the United States where the defendant was crossing into this country and put his cell phone in the custody of the border control officers. When they saw that there had been a conversation between the defendant and another person who was under investigation for illegal activity, they obtained a warrant and went through the phone’s content to obtain incriminating evidence. Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence acquired from the cell phone, which motion was denied and the appeal now is based on the authority of the Supreme Court in *Riley v. California,*— U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014).

We apply the law as it stands under holdings of the Supreme Court. The defendant’s argument fails because of the difference between a simple arrest and the plenary power of customs officials to search for concealed merchandise. The defendant in this routine crossing of the border could *355expect no privacy of articles in his possession. The Supreme Court said in 1925 in *Carroll v. United States,*267 U.S. 132, 154, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925): “Travelers may be so stopped in crossing an international boundary because of national self-protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in.” Then in 1985 the Supreme Court said: “Since the founding of our Republic, Congress has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country.” *United States v. Montoya de Hernandez,*473 U.S. 531, 537, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985).

The stop and search in this case were constitutionally valid.

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.
Exhibit
32.3








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Michael A. Reisner, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Co-President and Chief Financial
Officer of ICON Capital Corp., the Manager of the Registrant, in connection with
the Annual Report of ICON Income Fund Twelve, LLC (the “LLC”) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”) certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that::





1.
            The
      Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the LLC.





Date:March31,
2008








/s/Michael A.
Reisner_


Michael
A. Reisner


Co-Chief
Executive Officer, Co-President, and Chief Financial Officer


ICON
Capital Corp.


Manager
of ICON Leasing Fund Twelve, LLC
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00363

- CV

Broderick Darnell Jones v. Leslie Deases, Justice of the Peace, Pct. 1, San Patricio County, Texas
On Appeal from the 156th District Court of San Patricio County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. S

- 23

- 5113CV

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed

. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. No costs are assessed due to appellant ’ s inability to pay costs.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
October 26 , 2023
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6100 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6100

To prevent proposed regulations relating to restrictions on liquidation 
 of an interest with respect to estate, gift, and generation-skipping 
                   transfer taxes from taking effect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 2016

  Mr. Davidson (for himself, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Harper, Mr. Gosar, Mr. 
 Gohmert, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Brat, Mr. Collins of New York, 
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. 
  Chabot, Mr. Harris, Mr. Cole, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. 
Yoho, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Flores, Mrs. Hartzler, and Mr. Messer) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prevent proposed regulations relating to restrictions on liquidation 
 of an interest with respect to estate, gift, and generation-skipping 
                   transfer taxes from taking effect.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Family Farms and Businesses 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROPOSED REGULATIONS RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON LIQUIDATION OF 
              AN INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-
              SKIPPING TRANSFER TAXES PREVENTED FROM TAKING EFFECT.

    The proposed regulations under section 2704 of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 relating to restrictions on liquidation of an interest 
with respect to estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes, 
published on August 4, 2016, in the Federal Register (81 Fed. Reg. 
51413) shall have no force or effect. No Federal funds may be used to 
finalize, implement, administer, or enforce such proposed regulations 
or any substantially similar regulations.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Arthur T. Minson, Jr.,
certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Time Warner Cable Inc.; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                           |  |                                                                                                          
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 27, 2015 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Arthur T. Minson, Jr.
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                     |  | Arthur T. Minson, Jr.                                                                                    
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                    |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial Officer) Time Warner Cable
Inc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Al HARRIS, Appellant.

No. 38, Docket 30600.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 24, 1966.

Decided Oct. 25, 1966.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 9, 1967.

See 87 S.Ct. 718.

*827Andrew J. Maloney, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York and Otto G. Obermaier, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Jacob Kossman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MOORE and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Once more A1 Harris has been found guilty by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for refusing to answer the questions propounded on July 31, 1963 before a grand jury and again on August 1, 1963 before Judge McLean, following a grant of immunity pursuant to the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 409 (£)•

Harris was convicted of contempt by Judge McLean pursuant to Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and this court affirmed his conviction, 334 F.2d 460 (2 Cir. 1964). The Supreme Court reversed, 382 U.S. 162, 86 S.Ct. 352, 15 L.Ed.2d 240 (1965), and on remand Harris was tried before Judge Murphy, without a jury, in accordance with Rule 42(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and again found guilty. On May 16, 1966, he was sentenced to a year in jail.

Subsequent to Judge Murphy’s sentencing of Harris, the Supreme Court in Cheff v. Sehnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 380, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 1526, 16 L.Ed.2d 629 (1966), announced the rule that “sentences exceeding six months for criminal contempt may not be imposed by federal courts absent a jury trial or waiver thereof.”

Accordingly, as all parties concede, the district court exceeded its power in sentencing Harris to more than six months, as the finding of guilt was not made by a jury.

As we find no other error in the proceedings and no merit in any other contentions raised on this appeal, we reduce the sentence imposed by the district court from one year to six months, in the exercise of the “peculiar power of the federal courts to revise sentences in contempt cases,” Cheff v. Schnackenberg, supra at 380, 86 S.Ct. at 1526; see Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165, 188, 78 S. Ct. 632, 2 L.Ed.2d 672 (1958); United States v. Levine, 288 F.2d 272 (2 Cir. 1961), and we affirm the judgment.

The order of the district court is modified to provide that the sentence is for imprisonment of six months.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**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 IDT Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Stephen R. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: June 6, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDTCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  balance sheet and the consolidated  statement of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                         446,402
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,257,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    12,158,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,746,225
<PP&E>                                         8,933,758
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,680,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,048,835
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,196
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,463,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,680,376
<SALES>                                        10,199,819
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,199,819
<CGS>                                          7,489,357
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,125,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (20,382)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             315,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                289,748
<INCOME-TAX>                                   120,387
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            169,361
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   169,361
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.04
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brittany FRIERSON Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4104

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 18, 2017

Filed: August 25, 2017

Denis Dean, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, Jonathan Dean Ross, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brittany Frierson, Pro Se

Matthew F. Golden, Texarkana, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WOLLklAN, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

. Brittany Frierson-directly appeals after she pleaded guilty to a drug charge, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, and the district court1 sentenced her to a below-Guidelines-range prison term. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We have reviewed the record to determine whether the appeal waiver is valid, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity of appeal waiver), and whether there are any nonfrivolous issues for appeal, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) (independent review of record in Anders cases). We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable and that there are no non-frivolous issues outside the scope' of the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss the appeal.

1

. The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-51140

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HOMOGONIO RIOS-FUENTES,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-98-CR-252-ALL

--------------------

November 2, 1999

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Homogonio Rios-Fuentes appeals his guilty plea conviction

for intentionally distributing morphine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Specifically, Rios-Fuentes argues that the

district court erred by failing to state at his rearraignment

that: 1) the court had a duty to consider applicable sentencing

guidelines; 2) the court could depart from those guidelines in

certain circumstances; 3) Rios-Fuentes’ statements under oath

could form the basis of a perjury prosecution; and 4) RiosFuentes had a Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Rios-Fuentes
No. 98-51140 

-2-

also argues that the court erred by not inquiring into the

factual basis for his plea. Rios-Fuentes argues that these

omissions affected his substantial rights and rendered his guilty

plea invalid.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and find that the errors committed by the district court

in its Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy were harmless. See United

States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc); 

United States v. Bachynsky, 949 F.2d 722, 726 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.