alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bruce Anthony DILLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles E. SAMUELS, Jr., Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendant-Appellee, and United States of America, Defendant.

No. 17-1155

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 28, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Bruce Anthony Dillard, Appellant Pro Se.

*277Erin Carter Tison, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Anthony Dillard appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the Appellee to produce evidence related to Dillard’s claim. Dillard filed a complaint against the Appellee under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80 (2012) (FTCA). The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirmed the district court’s order.

Dillard then filed a petition in the district court for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Appellee to produce evidence related to his dismissed claim. The district court denied Dillard’s petition. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 726 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

The relief sought by Dillard is not available by way of mandamus because he had no clear right to the relief he requested. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6941 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fleeing law enforcement 

officers enforcing immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

Mr. ROSENDALE (for himself, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. GOODEN of 

Texas, Mr. HARRIS, Ms. BOEBERT, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. 

BURLISON, Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. 

FRY, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. OGLES, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. COLLINS) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fleeing 

law enforcement officers enforcing immigration laws, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Criminalize Fleeing 

5 from Immigration Enforcement Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FLEEING ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 758 of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6941 IH

1 ‘‘§ 758. Fleeing enforcement of immigration laws 

2 ‘‘Whoever— 

3 ‘‘(1) flees or evades a Federal, State, or local 

4 law enforcement officer, which officer has identified 

5 himself as such an officer, enforcing section 

6 274(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii), section 274(a)(2), section 

7 275, section 276, or section 277 of the Immigration 

8 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324, 1325, 1326, 

9 1327); or 

10 ‘‘(2) flees or evades a checkpoint operated by 

11 the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or any 

12 other Federal law enforcement agency, and flees 

13 Federal, State, or local law enforcement agents, 

14 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 

15 five years, or both, or, in the case of flight or evasion in 

16 motor vehicle in excess of the legal speed limit, shall be 

17 fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 8 years, 

18 or both.’’. 

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 for chapter 35 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 

21 by striking the item related to section 758 and inserting 

22 the following: 

‘‘758. Fleeing enforcement of immigration laws.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

EURAL DEWAYNE DEBBS, SR.,

Appellant.

No. 70223-8-

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: jul 7 2014

Per Curiam — Eural Debbs appeals his convictions for witness tampering and

fourth degree assault, arguing that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it had a

"duty to return a verdict of guilty" if itfound all the elements of the offense beyond a

reasonable doubt. This argument is controlled by our decision in State v. Ryan P.

Moore, Wn. App. , 318 P.3d 296 (2014) and the cases cited therein.

Affirmed.

For the Court:

i3,^^v^

era wo

HP

C_ —i^.

cr m '

i— o-^;

-T) ' -,

—i tf-cr

-^ -n n

3a> C/5 TV". '

IX zls £?' ""

en L.» , — -

en o5 o Z'"~ "-"-C
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
The Company 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             23
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,433     
<ALLOWANCES>                                       22
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                              4
<DEPRECIATION>                                      2
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  3,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                         1,351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    3,034
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  264
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      46 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   16
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    3
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    96
<INCOME-TAX>                                       34
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                62
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       62
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        
 

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julio Cesar ZAVALA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11736 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

Julio Cesar Zavala-Rodriguez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Julio Cesar Zavala-Rodriguez 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Zavala-Rodriguez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Zavala-Rodriguez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Zavala-Rodri-guez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-82 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
#### INTERVET INC., Merck & Co., Inc., Appellants v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, Appellee

2016-2131

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 3, 2017

*991Janelle Waack, Bass, Berry & Sims, PLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by Terry Lynn Clark, Brian Iverson; Richard Gregory Parker, Nashville, TN.

Frank G. Smith, III, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Matthew Wolff Howell; Robert Stephen Rigg, Vedder Price PC, Chicago, IL; Thomas J. Kowalski, New York, NY; Judy de Leon Jarecki-Black, Merial Inc., Duluth, GA.

(Moore, O’Malley, and Reyna, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                 BACOU USA, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 (in thousands)
                                  (Unaudited)


   
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                               March 31,
                                                        --------------------

                                                          1998         1997
                                                        -------      -------
                                                       (RESTATED)
<S>                                                     <C>          <C>    
Basic:
  Weighted average shares outstanding                    17,594       17,312
                                                        =======      =======

  Net income                                            $ 2,736      $ 4,132
                                                        =======      =======
  Per share amount                                      $  0.15      $  0.24
                                                        =======      =======

Diluted:

  Weighted average shares outstanding                    17,594       17,312

  Net effect of dilutive stock options
   based on the treasury stock method
   using the average market price                            60           10
                                                        -------      -------

 Total diluted shares                                    17,654       17,322
                                                        -------      -------
  Net income                                            $ 2,736      $ 4,132
                                                        =======      =======
  Per share amount                                      $  0.15      $  0.24
                                                        =======      =======
</TABLE>
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A0 6 9 6

. STEVE MARK LEDDON v

. THE J U LI E CABELKA

I RREVOCABLE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 3 0 , 2 0 1 0

Th e ap p el l an t i n t h i s cas e fai l ed t o co m p l y wi t h t h e n o t i ce o f d o ck et i ng m ai l ed

b y t h e Co u rt an d wi t h Co urt o f Ap p eal s Ru l es 2 3 (a), reg ard i n g t h e fi l i n g o f a n

en u m erat i o n o f erro rs an d a b ri ef wi t h t wen t y d ay s aft er t h e ap p eal was d o ck et ed

. See

al s o Co u rt of Ap p eal s Ru l e 1 3

. O n Decem b er 1 8

, 2 0 2 0, t h i s co u rt g ran t ed

Ap p el l an t ’ s req u es t fo r ad d i t i o n a l t i m e t o fi le h i s en u m erat i o n of erro rs an d b ri ef,

o rd eri n g t h at t h e en u m erat io n o f erro rs an d b ri ef b e fi l ed n o l at er t h an J an u ary 1 0,

2 0 2 1

. Rat h er t h an fi l i ng h i s b ri ef b y t h at d at e, o n J an u ary

1 0 , 2 0 2 1, ap p el l an t fi l ed

a s eco n d req u es t fo r ad d i t io nal t i m e. W e g ran t ed ap p el l an t ’ s s eco nd req ues t

, o rd eri n g

t h at h i s en u m erat i on o f erro rs an d b ri ef b e fi led n o lat er th an Feb ru ary 1 6. 2 0 2 1

. As

o f t h e d at e o f t h i s ord er, ap p el l a n t s t i l l h as n o t fi l ed h i s en um erat io n o f erro rs an d

b ri ef. A c co rd i n g l y

, t hi s ap peal i s d eem ed ab an d on ed an d i s hereb y ORDERED

DISM ISSED. Co urt o f Ap p eal s ru l es 7 , 2 3 (b ). March 23, 2021C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/23/2021
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wyaketta Latoya WELCH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7670

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Wyaketta Latoya Welch, Appellant Pro Se.

Alyssa Kate Nichol, Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*286PER CURIAM:

Wyaketta Latoya Welch appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016) (providing standard). Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced ... based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § lB1.10(a)(l), (d), p.s. (2016). Guidelines § lB1.10(d), p.s., lists the amendments that receive retroactive application, and this list does not include Amendment 794. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Welch the relief she sought under Amendment 794. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### James Clement POWELL; Lucy Hamrick Powell, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-2421

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

James Clement Powell, Lucy Hamrick Powell, Appellants Pro Se. Randolph Lyons Hutter, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

*764Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit-Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Clement Powell and Lucy Ham-rick Powell appeal the tax court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency and penalty with respect to their 2011 federal income tax liability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. *Powell v. Comm’r,*Tax Ct. No. 21839-14 (U.S. Tax Ct. Feb. 17, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

## Filings Instituting Proceedings

*Docket Numbers:*                     RP22-678-000.                

*Applicants:*                     Hummel Generation, LLC,                     *Hummel Generation, LLC*                     v.                     *UGI Sunbury, LLC*.                

*Description:*                     Complaint of                     *Hummel Generation, LLC*                     v.                     *UGI Sunbury, LLC*.                

*Filed Date:*                     3/4/22.                

*Accession Number:*                     20220304-5238.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. ET 3/16/22.                

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

                    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (                    *https://elibrary.ferc.gov/​idmws/​search/​fercgensearch.asp*) by querying the docket number.                

                    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​efiling/​filing-req.pdf.*                     For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

Dated: March 7, 2022.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-05166 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Daniel Pray, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appellate Advocates (Laura B. Tatelman), for appellant.Kings County District Attorney (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sharen D. Hudson, J.), rendered December 7, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of petit larceny. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), seeking leave to withdraw as counsel.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders v California</i> (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (<i>see id.</i>;<i> Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.]</i>, 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; <i>People v Paige</i>, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; <i>cf. People v Gonzalez</i>, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: February 09, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>