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

No. 16-11602 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

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

Brandon Elliott Beck, Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Ramon Ernesto Martinez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramon Ernesto Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. Calif*
      *817
      *ornia,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v.*Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez has not filed a response.

During the pendency of this appeal, Martinez completed the sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release and was released from custody. Because Martinez has not shown that he will suffer collateral consequences as a result of the revocation of his supervised release and because no additional term of supervised release was imposed, the instant appeal does not present a case or controversy and this court lacks jurisdiction. *See Spencer*v. *Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); *United States v. Clark,*193 F.3d 845, 847-48 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT, and counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

TOMMY YESBICK , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 1570

[ October 13, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3. 3850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Martin J. Bidwill

, Judge; L.T. Case No

. 09

- 008417CF10A

.
Tommy Yesbick

, Jasper, pro se

.
No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH , C.J.

, G ROSS and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
        SOUTH SEAS PROPERTIES COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE UNITS OUTSTANDING


                            EXHIBIT 99

The weighted average number of partnership units used in the computation
of earnings per unit is as follows:

                                                    Nine Months
                                           Ended September 30    
                                                  1996         1997 
<S>                                               <C>           <C>
  Actual number of units
   outstanding at the beginning of the
      period                                        4,308,568   4,426,568

     Weighted average number of units issued
       during the period                               42,861             44,750

     Weighted average number of units 
      outstanding during the period                             4,331,429   4,471,318

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

No. 16-10226

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX — Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mitchell Clawson, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

'Mitchell Clawson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 188-month sentence for abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2244(a)(5), and 2246(3). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Clawson’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Claw-son the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Clawson waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. *See id.*at 988.

We remand the case to the district court with instructions to amend the judgment to add “CIR” to the description of the offense and delete the language “or with a vulnerable population (i,e. elderly or physically or mentally handicapped),” and “and victim(s) family” from special condition numbers seven and ten, respectively. *See United States v. Hernandez,*795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (remanding for the district court to make the written judgment consistent with the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

*970DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

**

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

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6189 

To withdraw certain Bureau of Land Management land from mineral 

development. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 

Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain Bureau of Land Management land from 

mineral development. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Buffalo Tract Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, 

8 the Bureau of Land Management land described in sub9 section (b) is withdrawn from all forms of mineral developVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:25 Oct 01, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6189.IH H6189

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6189 IH

1 ment under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing or min2 eral materials, including locatable minerals. 

3 (b) BLM LAND DESCRIBED.—The Bureau of Land 

4 Management land referred to in subsection (a) is the land 

5 identified as ‘‘Tract A’’, ‘‘Tract B’’, ‘‘Tract C’’, and 

6 ‘‘Tract D’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Placitas, New Mexico 

7 Area Map’’ and dated March 11, 2016. 

8 (c) DISPOSAL OF SURFACE ESTATE.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

10 nothing in this section prohibits the disposal of the 

11 surface estate of the Bureau of Land Management 

12 land described in subsection (b) under— 

13 (A) the Federal Land Policy and Manage14 ment Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); or 

15 (B) the Act of June 14, 1926 (commonly 

16 known as the ‘‘Recreation and Public Purposes 

17 Act’’) (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.). 

18 (2) OWNERSHIP OF MINERAL ESTATE.—Any 

19 disposal of the surface estate of the Bureau of Land 

20 Management land described in subsection (b) shall 

21 be subject to the condition that the mineral estate 

22 of that land shall remain under the ownership of the 

23 Bureau of Land Management, subject to the with24 drawal described in subsection (a). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 800 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 800

    To provide for hearing care services by audiologists to Federal 
                          civilian employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 1995

  Mr. Cochran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for hearing care services by audiologists to Federal 
                          civilian employees.
    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 ``Hearing Care for Federal Employees 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AUDIOLOGIST SERVICES INCLUDED IN FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH 
              INSURANCE CONTRACTS.

    Section 8902(k)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``audiologist,'' after ``optometrist,'' each place the term 
appears.
                                 <all>
```
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5617 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

any discharge of student loan indebtedness. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 1, 2016 

Mr. POCAN (for himself, Mr. NOLAN, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. GRIJALVA, 

Mr. TAKANO, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. NORTON, Ms. MOORE, Ms. 

BONAMICI, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, and Mr. SCOTT of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income any discharge of student loan indebtedness. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Underwater Student 

5 Borrowers Act’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5617 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR DISCHARGE 

2 OF STUDENT LOAN INDEBTEDNESS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 108(f) 

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

5 as follows: 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an indi7 vidual, gross income does not include any amount 

8 which (but for this subsection) would be includible in 

9 gross income by reason of the discharge (in whole or 

10 in part) of any student loan if such discharge was 

11 pursuant to— 

12 ‘‘(A) a provision of such loan under which 

13 all or part of the indebtedness of the individual 

14 would be discharged if the individual worked for 

15 a certain period of time in certain professions 

16 for any of a broad class of employers, 

17 ‘‘(B) subsections (d)(1)(D) and (e)(7) of 

18 section 455 or section 493C(b)(7) of the Higher 

19 Education Act of 1965 (relating to income con20 tingent and income-based repayment, respec21 tively), 

22 ‘‘(C) section 437 of the Higher Education 

23 Act of 1965, or 

24 ‘‘(D) subsections (c)(1)(F) and (g) of sec25 tion 464 of the Higher Education Act of 

26 1965.’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5617 IH

1 (b) STUDENT LOANS.—Paragraph (2) of section 

2 108(f) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘made by— 

3 ’’ and all that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘. Such 

4 term includes indebtedness used to refinance indebtedness 

5 which qualifies as a student loan under the preceding sen6 tence.’’. 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to discharges of indebtedness after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Order entered June 28 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 00946
- CR
TIONA EVANS, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12
- 55243
- Q 

### O RDER
The Court GRANTS the June 25, 2013 request of the Dallas County District Clerk for an extension of time to file the supplemental clerk’s record in this appeal.
We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAY S of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in the case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed attorney fees. In accordance with Texas Code of C riminal Procedure article 103.001, the cost bill shall be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a document explaining any an d all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court appointed attorney fee.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk ’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

June 20, 2013 

Teriitavae Perez <t.perez@capitol.hawaii.gov> 

Friday, June 21, 2013 9:37 PM 

EAS (OST) 

Letter of Support for Mokulele Airlines 

Dear Department of Transportation, 

''''"-, .. · .. 

•'''\ ... ,, 

........ 

\.., .... ) 

I am writing to support Mokulele Airlines 4 year bid to link Honolulu and Waimea. Mokulele is the best candidate as they 

support lower fares, frequent flight, and ease of booking. T1'1e region h~en growing while the drive to the nearest 

airports in Hilo and Kailua-Kana becomes increasingly challenging. It is important we have safe, stable and affordable 

service to Waimea/Kohala. 

Please select Mokulele Airlines to serve Waimea/Kohala for 4 years. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Cindy Evans 

State House Representative 

District 7: North Kohala, South Kohala, North Kona 

State Representative Cindy Evans 

Room 425, State Capitol Building 

TEl: 808.S86.8510, Hawai'i Direct Dial 974.4000 ext. 6-8510# 

repevans@capitol.hawaii.gov 

1