alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Sean GOSS, also known as “Killer,” Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11591 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 3, 2017

*358James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Sean Goss, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Michael Sean Goss 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Goss has filed an untimely response, which we construe as a motion for leave to file an out-of-time response. We GRANT Goss leave to file his untimely response, We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Goss’s response. We agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review.

Goss argues that the district court erred in applying the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm. “A defendant’s sentence may properly be enhanced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) if the possession of a firearm by one of his coconspirators was reasonably foreseeable.” *United States v. Hernandez,*457 F.3d 416, 423 (5th Cir. 2006). As stated in the PSR, Goss purchased methamphetamine multiple times from a coconspirator who was known to carry a firearm during drug transactions. This court has held that a coconspirator’s use of a firearm in a drug transaction will ordinarily be foreseeable “because firearms are tools of the trade in drug conspiracies.” *Id.*(quoting *United States v. Dixon,*132 F.3d 192, 202 (5th Cir. 1997)). Thus, Goss has not raised a non-frivolous argument with respect to this enhancement.

Goss also argues that there is insufficient evidence that he “maintained” a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). Though Goss filed a written objection to the application of § 2D1.1(b)(12), he withdrew his objection at sentencing. A defendant’s withdrawal of an objection constitutes the waiver of that objection, and “[wjaived errors are entirely unreviewable.” *United States v. Musquiz,*45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, Goss has failed to present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal with respect to the application of § 2D1.1(b)(12). *See United States v. Rico,*864 F.3d 381, 384 (5th Cir. 2017) (withdrawal of written objection to enhancement at sentencing hearing constituted waiver).

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. Rebecca Ann NORTON, a.k.a. Becky Norton, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-11035-FF

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 09/20/2017

Melissa Kay Atwood, Michael B. Bill-ingsley, Thomas . E. Borton, IV, Robert *660Owen Posey, John B. Ward, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin L. Butler, Allison Case, Tobie John Smith, Federal Public Defender, Birmingham, AL, Deanna Lee Oswald, Federal Public Defender—NAL, Huntsville, AL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: ED CARNES, Chief Judge,. HULL, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Norton’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); *United States v. Grinard-Henry,*399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).
Exhibit 35

ITEM 1123 CERTIFICATION

I, David Duclos,
Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association (the Servicer), hereby certify that:

(1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during
the fiscal year covered by this annual report on Form 10-K and of the performance of the Servicer under the Standard Terms for Trust Agreement, dated as of November 9, 2006, between the Servicer and the depositor (the Agreement) has
been made under my supervision;

and

(2) To the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, I
have specified below each such failure known to me and the nature and status thereof.

Date: March 30, 2016



|                
|----------------
|/s/ David Duclos
|David Duclos    
|Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05007]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., March 23, 2022.

PLACE: Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must submit 
a written request at least 24 hours prior to the meeting to receive 
dial-in information. All requests must be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cb98aea8b9aebfaab9b2bfa4bfa3ae89a4aab9af8bb9b9a9e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="184b7d7b6a7d6c796a616c776c707d5a77796a7c586a6a7a367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
(1) Re-Entry Committee Briefing: Re-entry updates, Testing updates
(2) SCOTUS Wisconsin Central Update

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to 
the Board, (312) 751-4920.
    Authority 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: March 4, 2022.
Stephanie Hillyard,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-05007 Filed 3-4-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

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

                                 UNITED STATES
                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            Washington, D.C. 20549

                                  FORM 10-Q/A


  [X]          QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
                    OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

               For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2000

                                      OR

  [_]      TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                      Commission File Number 33-80775-01

                            Case Credit Corporation
            (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                                   Delaware
                           (State of Incorporation)

                                  76-0394710
                     (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

                        233 Lake Ave., Racine, WI 53403
          (Address of principal executive offices including Zip Code)

      Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (262) 636-6011

   Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days.
   YES [X]  NO [_]

   Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes
of common stock as of the latest practicable date.

   Common Stock, par value $5.00 per share: 200 shares outstanding as of
September 30, 2000, all of which are owned by CNH Capital Corporation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT INDEX

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Sequential
 Exhibit                                                        Page
 Number                Description of Exhibit                 Numbers
 ------- -------------------------------------------------   ----------
 <C>     <S>                                                 <C>
   12    Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

   27    Financial Data Schedule
</TABLE>

                                       17
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 on Form 10-K of BRIGHTCUBE, INC. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Michael F. Manion, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Brightcube, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: March 31, 2010





By: /s/Michael F. Manion


Michael F. Manion


Chief Executive Officer


Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6989

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SEAN FRANCIS SCHAFFNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00370-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02508-

RBH)

Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 21, 2018

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Francis Schaffner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean Francis Schaffner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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 dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion 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 Schaffner 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 this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angelino RODRIGUEZ-BARCENAS, a.k.a. Manuel Honorio Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50394

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 18, 2017

*564Matthew Sutton, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Angelino Rodríguez-Barcenas, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *564*See*Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Angelino Rodríguez-Barcenas appeals from the revocation of supervised release and the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rodriguez-Barcenas’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

Because Rodríguez-Barcenas has fully served his sentence and is not subject to a term of supervised release, we dismiss this appeal as moot. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); *United States v. Palomba,*182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1

Opinion issued July 17, 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00324
- CV

——————————— BRIDGET AUSMUS , Appellant

V. WELLS FARGO BANK , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Probate

Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CI50623

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant , Bridget Ausmus , has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 20.1 ; see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § § 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 ( West 201 3 ); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts2

of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket
No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX
. R. A PP
. P . app. A § B(1)

. Further, Ausmus has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee fo r preparing the clerk’s record, nor the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b) , (c). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, app ellant did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5 ; 42.3 (b), (c). We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of prosecution . We dismiss any pending motions as moot

.

PER CURIAM Panel con sists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown

.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

EDWIN PETER BLAS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 10078

D.C. No. 1:99

- cr

- 00021

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands Ramona V. Manglona, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2 , 2020 * *

Before: WALLACE

, CLIFTON , and BRESS , Circuit Judges

.

Edwin Peter Blas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 18

- month sentence imposed upon his fifth revocation of supervised release.

We have jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Blas first contends that the district court pro cedurally erred and violated his

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 10078

due process rights by basing his sentence on hearsay statements contained in a

police report

. This claim fails because, t o the extent the court considered the

statements in assessing Blas’s breach of the court’s trust

, Blas has not shown that

the statements lacked the requisite indicia of reliability

. See United States v.

Vanderwerfhorst , 576 F.3d 929, 93 5

- 3 6 (9th Cir. 2009) (information is unreliable

“if it lacks some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allega tion” (internal

quotations omitted)).

Blas also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it

does not serve a rehabilitative purpose and because it was based on the district

court’s unfounded belief that he poses a threat to the comm unity

. The district court

did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The above

- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Blas’s

repeated breach es of the court’s trust and his disregard for the terms of his

supervised release. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51

. Moreover, contrary to Blas’s

contention, the di strict court thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the

sentenc e. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984

, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)

.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of MDU Communications International, Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 333-45982) of our report dated
November 17, 2000 on our audit of the consolidated financial statements of MDU Communication International, Inc. as of September 30, 2000, which report is included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of MDU Communications International, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2000.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Vancouver,
Canada
December 20, 2000

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MINDSPRING ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          62,498
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,970
<ALLOWANCES>                                       600
<INVENTORY>                                        109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,470
<PP&E>                                          40,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,575
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           259
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,015
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,139
<CGS>                                           22,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (590)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                       212
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,866
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,866
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-6544 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-198-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replacement 78.0 $6,630.0

0

$33,000 $39,630.00 105 $4,161,150.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $4,161,150

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Inspection 0.0 $ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

Repair $ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: Does not afect small business.

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5891 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5891

  To prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using funds to 
       carry out the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2016

  Mr. Salmon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
 Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using funds to 
       carry out the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program.

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

SECTION 1. FUNDING PROHIBITION.

    The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not 
use any funds to carry out the Environmental Justice Small Grants 
Program.
                                 <all>
```