alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 11979 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10

- cv - 02941

- VEH

KRISTOPHER SWAIN, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v ersus PRECISION STRIP, INC., Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________ (March 5, 2013) Before MARCUS , PRYOR and KRAVITCH , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-11979 Date Filed: 03/05/2013 Page: 1 of 32 Kristopher Swain appeals the summary judgment against his pro se complaint that Precision Strip violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by terminating him after a supervisor learned of his interracial marriage. 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e

- 2(a) , 1981. The district court ruled that Swain failed to establish a prima facie case of race - based disparate treatment and, alternatively, f ailed to establish that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason proffered for his termination was pretext ual. We affirm. The district court did not err when it entered summary judgment in favor of Precision Strip

. Even if we assume that Swain establish ed a prima facie case, he presented no evidence that hi s disciplin ary record was merely a pretext for disp arate treatment based on race . See Cooper v. S. Co. , 390 F.3d 695, 725 (11th Cir. 2004) , overruled on other grounds , Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 546 U.S. 454, 457, 126 S. Ct. 1195, 1197 (2006)

. Affidavits prepared by the plant manager, Brian Rismiller , and the three members of the management team responsible for Swain’s discharge, Delilah Glover, Roslyn Bruns, and Nick Moorman, established that they terminate d Swain based on his repeated violations of the safety, performance, and attendance policies of Precision Strip . And Swain failed to create a genuine factual dispute about the legitimacy of th ose reason s . Swain testified about twice violating the safety and attendance policies and being placed on an attendance improvement plan, and he did not deny that he ha d been placed

Case: 12-11979 Date Filed: 03/05/2013 Page: 2 of 33 on a performance improvement plan and receiv ed multiple verbal warnings, two written warnings, and one suspension for violating six different safety and performance rules. Swain complained that he was terminated because Rismiller disapproved of Swain’s interracial marriage, but Swain testified that Rismiller met Swain’s wife at a picnic more than three years before he was fired and never later commented on the marriage or his wife’s race. Glover, Bruns, and Moorman averred that t hey did not mention Swain’s marriage when deciding whether to terminate Swain, a nd Bruns and Moorman averred that they were unaware Swain’s wife was white

. We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Precision Strip. Case: 12-11979 Date Filed: 03/05/2013 Page: 3 of 3
#### PAICE LLC, The Abell Foundation, Inc., Appellants v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee

2016-1746

2016-2034

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 21, 2017

Ruffin B. Cordell, Fish & Richardson, PC, Washing-ton, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by Timothy W. Riffe, Brian James Livedalen, Daniel Tishman.

Matthew J. Moore, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appel-lee. Also represented by Gabriel Bell; John P. Rondini, Frank A. Angileri, Andrew B. Turner, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield, MI.

(Dyk, Mayer, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### Geovana Antonia TOLEDO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-70980

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Geovana Antonia Toledo, Pro Se

*602Aric Allan Anderson, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Geovana Antonia Toledo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. *Singh v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Toledo’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed 12 years after her in absentia order of removal, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), and she failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, *see Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011), and failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); *Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (to prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, applicant must produce material evidence of changed country conditions that establishes prima facie eligibility for the relief sought).

Contrary to Toledo’s contention, the BIA’s decision in *Matter of M-S-,*22 I. & N. Dec. 349 (BIA 1998), concerning aliens who do not receive oral warnings of the consequences of failing to appear, does not provide an independent basis for untimely reopening of her removal proceedings to apply for relief from removal. *See id.*at 357 (filing deadline applies to motions to reopen based on lack of oral notice). Accordingly, Toledo’s due process claim fails. *See Lata v. I.N.S.,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Toledo’s remaining contentions regarding exceptional circumstances or eligibility for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 725

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain authorities relating

to the provision of community-based health care by the Department

of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 25 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. DORGAN,

and Mr. WELLSTONE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain

authorities relating to the provision of community-based

health care by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 ‘‘Veterans Community5 Based Care Act of 1995’’.
2

•S 725 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES RELATING

2 TO COMMUNITY-BASED CARE.

3 (a) ALCOHOL OR DRUG DEPENDENCE AND ABUSE.—

4 Section 1720A(e) of title 38, United States Code, is

5 amended by striking out ‘‘December 31, 1995’’ and insert6 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘December 31, 2000’’.

7 (b) NONINSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES TO NURSING

8 HOME CARE.—Section 1720C(a) of such title is amended

9 by striking out ‘‘September 30, 1995,’’ and inserting in

10 lieu thereof ‘‘December 31, 2000,’’.

11 (c) COMMUNITY-BASED RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR

12 HOMELESS CHRONICALLY MENTALLY ILL VETERANS

13 AND OTHER VETERANS.—Section 115(d) of the Veterans’

14 Benefits and Services Act of 1988 (38 U.S.C. 1712 note)

15 is amended by striking out ‘‘September 30, 1995’’ and in16 serting in lieu thereof ‘‘December 31, 2000’’.

17 (d) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM OF COMPENSATED

18 WORK THERAPY.—Section 7(a) of Public Law 102–54

19 (38 U.S.C. 1718 note) is amended by striking out ‘‘fiscal

20 years 1991 through 1995’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

21 ‘‘the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on

22 December 31, 2000’’.
3

•S 725 IS

1 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR ENHANCED-USE

2 LEASES OF REAL PROPERTY.

3 Section 8169 of title 38, United States Code, is

4 amended by striking out ‘‘December 31, 1995’’ and insert5 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘December 31, 2000’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001005335
<NAME>                 Smith Barney Principal Plus Futures Fund L.P. II
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                        6,422,439
<SECURITIES>                                                 13,828,983
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             20,251,422
<PP&E>                                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               20,251,422
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           745,579
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   19,505,843
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 20,251,422
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                146,133
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 90,290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  55,843
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     55,843
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      2.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto Jesus MORALES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40636 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 8, 2017

Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gilberto Jesus Morales, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Gilberto Jesus Morales 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). Morales has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         732,033
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  450,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                    832,832
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,164,792
<PP&E>                                          55,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,927,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          831,915
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              389
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           550
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,094,514
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,927,368
<SALES>                                      1,414,749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,414,749
<CGS>                                          795,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  795,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (914,653)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (914,653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (914,653)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERNALLY
PREPARED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE 3 MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR PERIOD
ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,781
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,852
<PP&E>                                           1,734
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,212
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,642
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,976
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,094
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,690
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,027
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,982
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,522
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,522
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 75

To allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations required under chapter

313 of title 18, United States Code, relating to offenders with mental

disease or defect to be conducted by a clinical social worker.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations required under chapter 313 of title 18, United States

Code, relating to offenders with mental disease or defect

to be conducted by a clinical social worker.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK4 ERS.

5 The first sentence of subsection (b) of section 4247

6 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by—

7 (1) striking out ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘certified psychia8 trist’’ and inserting a comma; and
2

•S 75 IS

1 (2) inserting after ‘‘psychologist,’’ the following:

2 ‘‘or clinical social worker,’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
COTELLIGENT,  INC. CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE
30,  2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001004963
<NAME>                                         COTELLIGENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         45913
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  21917
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1662
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               75555
<PP&E>                                         16937
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          37347
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       152
<OTHER-SE>                                     87509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   125058
<SALES>                                        23753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               23753
<CGS>                                          16500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               13470
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2643)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5130)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 6011
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   881
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .06



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael SHORT, also known as Nate, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-30346 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 25, 2017

Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Short, Pro Se

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Short, federal prisoner # 22355-034, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendments 591 and 607. He contends that the district court erroneously determined that Amendment 591 did not apply because he was not convicted of an offense referenced in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2. In addition, Short asserts that the district court did not follow the correct procedure in calculating his original advisory guidelines range.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Amendments 591 and 607 did not have the effect of lowering Short’s guidelines range. Therefore, Short was not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); *United States v. Anderson,*591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th- Cir. 2009); *United States v. Wilson,*267 Fed.Appx. 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, Short’s claims regarding the validity of his original sentence are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. *See United States v. Hernandez,*645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Short’s motion. *See Dillon,*560 U.S. at 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.