alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ira R. LEON, Petitioner-Appellant v. State of NEBRASKA; Scott Frakes, Director of the Nebraska Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees *507Ira R. Leon, Petitioner-Appellant v. State of Nebraska; Scott Frakes, Director of the Nebraska Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees

No. 16-3538, No. 16-3826

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 8, 2017

Filed: May 19, 2017

Ira R. Leon, Pro Se

Austin Nicholas Relph, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Respondents-Appellees

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 case, Ira Leon appeals the district court’s1 orders (1) denying his Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the time to appeal, and (2) denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 motion to reopen the judgment denying habeas relief to restart the appeal clock. The district court correctly determined that Leon did not meet the requirements for relief under Rule 4(a)(6), see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (providing a district court may reopen the time to file an appeal only if, inter alia, the motion to reopen is filed within 180 days of the entry of the order being appealed or within 14 days after the movant receives notice of entry, whichever is earlier), or under Rule 60(b), see Fox v. Brewer, 620 F.2d 177, 180 (8th Cir. 1980) (holding that a belated filing of a Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used to circumvent jurisdictional time limits for appellate review). We decline to issue a certificate of appealability, see United States v. Rinaldi, 447 F.3d 192, 195 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), and dismiss the appeals.

1

. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando TELLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50383

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed September 29, 2017

*923Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Alicia Phillip Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Barbara M. Donovan, Donovan & Donovan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. •

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Fernando Tello appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Tello contends that the district court erred by denying him a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The record reflects that, at Tello’s request, the district court considered his culpability relative to three other participants in the offense. Tello did not ask the court to consider the culpability of additional possible participants, and in the absence of such a request or any evidence of the existence of additional participants, the court was not required to do so. *See United States v. Rojas-Millan,*234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court should consider the involvement of “other likely actors” if it finds “sufficient evidence of their existence and participation in the overall scheme”).

Moreover, the court did not refuse to consider the individual identified as “El Campo,” but rather concluded that this individual was not an “average participant” to whom Tello should be compared. *See United States v. Hurtado,*760 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The requisite comparison is to average participants, not above-average participants.”), *overruled on other grounds by Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d at 1174.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the factors enumerated in the amended commentary to section 3B1.2 and concluded that, in light of the facts of this case, Tello failed to meet the standard for a minor role reduction. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 28, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, NFPA has provided an updated and current list of its standards development activities, related technical committee and conformity assessment activities. Information concerning NFPA regulations, technical committees, current standards, standards development and conformity assessment activities are publicly available at                     *nfpa.org.*

                    On September 20, 2004, NFPA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 21, 2004 (69 FR 61869).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 15, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 14, 2021 (86 FR 67082).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05113 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### Maryland Casualty Company, Respondent, *v.*Central Trust Company, Rochester, N. Y., Appellant. United States of America ex rel. Maryland Casualty Company, Respondent, *v.*Central Trust Company, Rochester, N. Y., Appellant. (Consolidated Actions.)

Submitted June 14, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*Ruben A. Danhoff*for motion.

*J. Paul Brennan*opposed.

Motion dismissed, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
null

2013-01-09

615.08307

eng - Argued: 2013-01-09. Docket number: 4-10-0664
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13756-13757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Medical CBRN Defense Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 10, 2022, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Medical CBRN Defense 
Consortium (``MCDC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Centivax, Inc., San Francisco, CA; EverGlade 
Pharmaceuticals, Washington, DC; Global Pandemic Prevention and 
Biodefense Center, Arlington, VA; Tutela Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Vernon 
Hills, IL and Vala Sciences, Inc., San Diego, CA have been added as 
parties to this venture.
    Also, Fraunhofer USA Center for Molecular Biotechnology, Newark, 
DE; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Boston, MA; Full Effect 
Biotech, Inc., Kansas City, KS; GattaCo, Inc., Murrieta, CA; Hawaii 
Biotech, Inc., Honolulu, HI; Indiana Biosciences Research Institute, 
Indianapolis, IN; Integrity Bio, Inc., Camarillo, CA; NYU School of 
Medicine, New York, NY; Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 
New Brunswick, NJ; SitScape, Inc., Vienna, VA and The Regents of the 
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO have withdrawn as parties to this 
venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and MCDC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 13, 2015, MCDC filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the

[[Page 13757]]

Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 6, 2016 
(81 FR 513).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 1, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 24, 2021 (86 FR 67082).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05095 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Peter James ATHERTON, Appellant, v. Sally JEWELL, Secretary, Department of Interior, Individual and Official Capacity, et al., Appellees.

No. 16-5247

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: January 24, 2017

Rehearing En Banc Denied May 26, 2017

l:14-cv-02160-CRC

Peter James Atherton, Pro Se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Claire M. Whitaker, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: Henderson, Brown, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Per Curiam

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply; the motion for summary reversal and the opposition thereto; the motion to file handwritten pleadings; and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to submit handwritten pleadings is granted as to the handwritten response to the motion for summary affirmance. See Fed. R. App. 'P. 27(d)(2)(B). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

*644FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal be denied. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant’s complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) because the discretionary function exemption applies, see Cope v. Scott, 45 F.3d 445, 448 (D.C. Cir. 1995), and did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions, see Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Although FTCA’s “judgment bar” provision is not a basis for the denial of appellant’s motion to amend the complaint to include a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), see Simmons v. Himmelreich, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1843, 1847-49, 195 L.Ed.2d 106 (2016), appellant does not dispute that this claim would have been untimely, see Banks v. Chesapeake and Potomac Tel. Co., 802 F.2d 1416, 1428-29 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

April 5, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-14342

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00071-CV-3-MCR-MD

KENNETH D. JEWSON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus 

GARY THOMAS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(April 5, 2006)

Before DUBINA, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Florida prisoner Kenneth D. Jewson appeals the district court’s denial of his

federal habeas petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a

certificate of appealability (COA) on the following issue only:

Whether the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 938

(11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), by failing to address appellant’s claim that

the district court judge lacked jurisdiction to issue an order on an

evidentiary hearing held before another judge, as set forth in claim 11

of appellant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 

Normally, we deem issues not argued in the petitioner’s brief abandoned. 

See Hartsfield v. Lemacks, 50 F.3d 950, 953 (11th Cir. 1995) (considering

abandonment in context of a § 1983 action). For example, in Isaacs v. Head, the

district court certified 16 grounds for appeal in the COA, but Isaacs only argued 8

of these in his brief. 300 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2002). We held the other

eight grounds were abandoned. Id.

We granted a COA on the issue of whether the district court erred by not

addressing the merits of Jewson’s claim 11, that the state trial court conducting his

post-conviction evidentiary hearing did not possess subject matter jurisdiction to

rule on the hearing once the initial judge recused himself. Jewson’s brief only

addressed the merits of the claim, not whether the district court erred by not

addressing it. Jewson abandoned the sole issue on which we granted the COA by

failing to argue the issue on appeal. 
3

Even if Jewson had not abandoned the claim, the district court did not fail to

address Jewson’s claim. All claims regarding defects, jurisdictional or otherwise,

in Jewson’s state collateral proceeding were resolved by the district court’s finding

that such claims were not properly brought in a § 2254 petition because those

claims did not attack Jewson’s confinement, but only attacked a proceeding

collateral to that confinement. 

Jewson abandoned the Clisby issue on appeal. Furthermore, the district

court resolved each issue related to Jewson’s state collateral proceeding in deciding

his § 2254 petition.

AFFIRMED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT TRAVIS LEE MORGAN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3342 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed January 30, 2019 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Debra Johnes Riva, Judge. Howard L. Dimming, II, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. KELLY, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10048 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GREGORIO MARTINEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CR-221-6-X

-------------------- October 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Gregorio Martinez-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief, Martinez-Garcia’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### Margaret Rae FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CERRO GORDO COUNTY, an Iowa Municipal Corporation; City of Mason City, an Iowa Municipal Corporation; Roungaroun Phaiboun; Kevin Pals; Shad Stoeffler; Terry Allen Burns; Additional Unidentified Mason City Police Department Officers or Employees; Additional Unidentified Cerro Gordo County Jail Staff; Josh Stratmann; Brandon Neidermayer; Justin Faught; Chad Harkema; Rusty Pals; Brenda Crom; Marc Kappmeyer, Defendants-Appellees Margaret Rae Foster, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Cerro Gordo County, an Iowa Municipal Corporation; City of Mason City, an Iowa Municipal Corporation; Roungaroun Phaiboun; Kevin Pals; Shad Stoeffler; Terry Allen Burns; Additional Unidentified Mason City Police Department Officers or Employees; Additional Unidentified Cerro Gordo County Jail Staff; Josh Stratmann; Brandon Neidermayer; Justin Faught; Chad Harkema; Rusty Pals; Brenda Crom; Marc Kappmeyer, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-2621, No. 16-3195

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 16, 2017

Filed: October 23, 2017

Dylan James Thomas, Mason City, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

David E. Schrock, Scheldrup & Blades, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendants-Appel-lees Cerro Gordo County, Kevin Pals, *863Shad Stoeffler, Terry Allen Burns, Additional Unidentified Cerro Gordo County Jail Staff, Justin Faught, Chad Harkema, Rusty Pals, Brenda. Crom, Marc Kappmeyer

Alex Grasso, Barbara Ann Hering, Hopkins *&*Huebner, Des Moines, LA, for Defendants-Appellees City of Mason City, Roungaroun Phaiboun, Josh Stratmann, Brandon Neidermayer

Before COLLOTON,' BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Margaret Foster appeals from the orders of the District Court granting summary judgment to defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming excessive force and deliberate indifference. We affirm the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny as moot the pending motion.

KELLY, Circuit Judge,

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

Because I believe there remain material facts in dispute regarding the claim of deliberate indifference against the jail nurse, I would reverse the grant of summary judgment on this claim. I otherwise concur.
#### WYNNE et al v. LOGAN *et*al.

Appeal from McLennan county.

*Practice.*— Appellees move to strike out the statement of facts in the record. 1. Because it contains deed and certificates of authentication and registration^ and a will with its certificate of probate and certificates of copies thereof are set out in full in said statement. 2. Because the interrogatories to certain witnesses, and the answers of these witnesses, together with the certificate of the notary before whom the answers were taken, are copied in full. Upon an examination of the statement of facts, we find that it is subject to all the objections taken in the motion, and directly in violation of rules 71, 73,74 and 75 of this court. The only question for us to consid*124er then is, what penalty should be enforced in the present case for such a breach of the rules of this court ? It would, of course *be*-within the power of this court to strike the statement from the record, but we do not feel disposed to enforce so severe a penalty in the present ease. We think, however, that the costs of the entire statement, as well as of this motion, be charged to appellants, and judgment accordingly will be rendered, no matter what may be the final deposition of the cause. Hereafter the rule will be more ridg* idly enforced, and upon motion of the appellees, unless some peculiar circumstances requiring that the objectionable papers should be brought before this court, a statement of facts made up by the parties, in violation of the rules of this court, will be stricken from the transcript, and will not *be*regarded as forming any portion of the record of the cause.

Opinion by

Willie, O. J.
#### Reginald D. EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolina RICHARDSON, Treasurer for Sumter County, South Carolina; Sumter County, South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1144

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON *&*LIN-DEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, * we conclude that the order Evans seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Evans to file an amended complaint. 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 AND REMANDED*

*

The district court's order makes clear that some of Evans’ claims may not be saved through amendment, and he may realistically only state a plausible claim for relief with regard to his Fourteenth Amendment claims. This split judgment does not provide us with jurisdiction to consider Evans’ appeal. *See Waugh Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local*27, 728 F.3d 354, 359 (4th Cir. 2013).