alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Saul ESTRADA-RAMOS, a.k.a. Hector Estrada-Ramos, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10238

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 18, 2017

Erica McCallum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Hector Saul Estrada-Ramos, Pro Se

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Saul Estrada-Ramos appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Estrada-Ramos’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 Estrada-Ramos the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Estrada-Ramos 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 correct the judgment to reflect the correct offense of conviction, attempted reentry of a removed alien.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED; 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,358,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,045,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (154,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,731,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,287,000
<PP&E>                                     142,789,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (50,426,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             116,904,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,108,000
<BONDS>                                    43,5000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,458,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               116,904,000
<SALES>                                     77,213,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            77,213,000
<CGS>                                       26,398,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,176,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,071,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,920,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,920,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,920,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.40
        

</TABLE>
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 680

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel YES DEAR.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106, 12107, and

6 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of

7 Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

8 with a coastwise endorsement for the vessel YES DEAR,

9 United States official number 578550.

Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 680

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

DEAR.wise trade endorsement for the vessel YESissue a certificate of documentation and coast-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          2,588,299
<SECURITIES>                                    3,461,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,889,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                       24,267
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                8,589,802
<PP&E>                                          4,173,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,030,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,933,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,265,875
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           86,544
<OTHER-SE>                                      9,150,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,933,837
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,672,958
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   4,296,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                109,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,541,805)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      104,081
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,645,886)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,645,886)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.19)
        


</TABLE>
#### Terry Franklin GARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARTERET COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; State of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6967

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Terry Franklin Gamer, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry Franklin Garner appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Garner’s informal brief does not sufficiently challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Garner has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we deny Garner’s motions to appoint counsel. 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*
suggested footnote

Higgins, Cortney to: Martha Keating 05/29/2012 01:59 PM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney

_ Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Martha Keating/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

History: This message has been forwarded.

After the first full paragraph on p. 25 that ends with 70 FR 39134, EPA should consider a clarifying

footnote to the effect that:

EPA notes that a BART determination made under the regional haze program is separate and distinct

from a best available control technology (BACT) determination made under the prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) program. 42 U.S.C. Section 7475. The fact that a control technology has been

chosen in a BART determination does not mean that it will be chosen in a BACT determination.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7097 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7097

 To authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct outreach and provide 
assistance to institutions of higher education to support training and 
internships for members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2024

 Ms. Sherrill (for herself, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, Mr. Allred, Mr. 
   Crow, Mr. Davis of North Carolina, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Kim of New 
Jersey, Ms. Norton, Ms. Titus, and Ms. Tokuda) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct outreach and provide 
assistance to institutions of higher education to support training and 
internships for members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``College Opportunities for 
Servicemembers Act''.

SEC. 2. TRAINING AND EDUCATION FOR TRANSITIONING MEMBERS THROUGH 
              INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

    (a) Skillbridge.--The Secretary of Defense may conduct outreach to 
institutions of higher education in order to enter into more agreements 
with such institutions that may provide training or internships to 
members of the Armed Forces pursuant to the Skillbridge program 
established under section 1143(e) of title 10, United States Code.
    (b) Centers for Military and Veterans Education.--The Secretary of 
Defense may conduct outreach and provide assistance to institutions of 
higher education to support the creation of centers at such 
institutions through which members of the Armed Forces eligible for 
Skillbridge and veterans may receive job training.
    (c) Institution of Higher Education Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``institution of higher education'' means an institution described 
in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1001(a)).
                                 <all>
```
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 Annual Report of Atlas America Series 27-2006 L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the MGP, 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            March
      31, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lany Antonio SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6962

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Larry Antonio Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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

*276Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Antonio Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing Simmons’ “motion to be resentenced without the [21 U.S.C. § ] 851 [ (2012) ] enhancement” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it as a second or successive § 2255 motion filed without authorization. We conclude that the district court correctly determined that Simmons’ motion was in substance a successive § 2255 motion.

The district court’s order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Simmons 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*
Opinion issued March 26, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00020-CV

———————————

MICHAEL NEWSOME, Appellant

V.

HOUSTON POLICE OFFICERS’ PENSION SYSTEM, TERRY BRATTON, 

D. TREY COLEMAN, GEORGE GUERRERO, STEVE LE, DON A. 

SANDERS, AND MELISSA DUBOWSKI, Appellees

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2023-82123

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 8, 2024, appellant, Michael Newsome, filed a notice of appeal

from the trial court’s December 20, 2023 order granting the plea to the jurisdiction 

of appellees, the Houston Police Officers’ Pension System, Terry Bratton, D. Trey 
2

Coleman, George Guerrero, Steve Le, Don A. Sanders, and Melissa Dubowski

(collectively, “appellees”). Appellant has neither paid the required fees nor 

established indigence for purposes of costs. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145; TEX. R. APP.

P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.851(b), 51.941(a); 

Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, 

and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 

15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). On January 31, 2024, appellant was notified that this 

appeal was subject to dismissal if appellate costs were not paid, or indigence was not 

established, by March 1, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not 

adequately respond.

Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the 

preparation of the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). On February 16, 

2024, appellant was notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant did 

not submit written evidence that he had paid or made arrangements to pay the fee 

for the preparation of the clerk’s record by February 26, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not adequately respond. 

Based on appellant’s failure to pay appellate costs, or pay or make 

arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record, on March 5, 2024, 

appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. More than 

ten days have passed, and appellant has not responded to appellees’ motion to 
3

dismiss. Further, appellees’ motion states that appellant has “indicated he is not 

opposed to [appellees’] motion to dismiss.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a).

Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for 

nonpayment of all required fees and want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 

42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 801

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of 2 hydroelectric projects in North Carolina, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 15, 1995

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of 2 hydroelectric projects in

North Carolina, 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. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

4 (a) PROJECT NUMBERED 10812.—

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time

6 period specified in section 13 of the Federal Power

7 Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to

8 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project

9 numbered 10812, the Commission may, at the re-
2

•S 801 IS

1 quest of the licensee for the project, and after rea2 sonable notice, in accordance with the good faith,

3 due diligence, and public interest requirements of

4 that section and the Commission’s procedures under

5 that section, extend the time period during which

6 the licensee is required to commence the construc7 tion of the project, under the extension described in

8 paragraph (2), for not more than 5 consecutive 2-

9 year periods.

10 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall

11 take effect on the date of the expiration of the ex12 tension of the period required for commencement of

13 construction of the project described in paragraph

14 (1) that the Commission issued, prior to the date of

15 enactment of this Act, under section 13 of the Fed16 eral Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).

17 (b) PROJECT NUMBERED 6879.—

18 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time

19 period specified in section 13 of the Federal Power

20 Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to

21 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project

22 numbered 6879, the Commission may, at the request

23 of the licensee for the project, and after reasonable

24 notice, in accordance with the good faith, due dili25 gence, and public interest requirements of that sec-
3

•S 801 IS

1 tion and the Commission’s procedures under that

2 section, extend the time period during which the li3 censee is required to commence the construction of

4 the project for not more than 5 consecutive 2-year

5 periods.

6 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall

7 take effect on the date of the expiration of the pe8 riod required for commencement of construction of

9 the project under the license for the project.

Æ
#### Ozelia HICKS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Laura S. KHAWAJA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6989

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Ozelia Hicks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

*194Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ozelia Hicks, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s prior order directing Hicks either to pay the initial partial filing fee or submit a sworn statement attesting to the unavailability of funds to make that payment. A plaintiffs failure to comply with a court order may warrant involuntary dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We review such a dismissal for abuse of discretion. *Ballard v. Carlson,*882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that dismissal is the appropriate sanction where litigant disregarded court order despite warning that failure to comply with order would result in dismissal).

Our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to dismiss Hicks’ complaint after he failed to comply with the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hicks v. Khawaja,*No. 3:17-cv-00406-REP-RCY (E.D. Va. July 21, 2017). We deny all of Hicks’ pending motions and 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*