alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6085

RONNIE W. WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN BUSH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:17-cv-00461-JMC)

Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie W. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie W. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that 

relief be denied and advised Wilson that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Wilson 

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper 

notice. 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
# EUR-Lex - 32002Q0618 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002Q0618

**Amendment to the Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2002 **

*
Official Journal L 160 , 18/06/2002 P. 0001 - 0001 *

Amendment to the Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance

of 5 June 2002

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

On a proposal from the President of the Court of First Instance,

Having regard to the Rules of Procedure adopted on 2 May 1991, as last amended on 6 December 2000, and in particular Article 23 thereof,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE REGISTRAR,

adopted on 3 March 1994 (OJ L 78 of 22.3.1994, p. 32 et seq.) and amended on 29 March 2001 (OJ L 119 of 27.4.2001, p. 2 et seq.):

Article 1

The following paragraph shall be added to Article 1 of the Instructions to the Registrar: "2. In carrying out the duties specified above, the Registrar shall be assisted by an Assistant Registrar. In the absence of the Registrar or in the event of his being prevented from carrying out those duties, they shall be performed by the Assistant Registrar who shall take the decisions reserved to the Registrar by the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance or these Instructions or delegated to him pursuant to these Instructions."

Article 2

This amendment to the Instructions to the Registrar, which is authentic in the languages referred to in Article 36(2) of the Rules of Procedure, shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall enter into force on the day following its publication.

Done at Luxembourg, 5 June 2002.

Registrar

H. Jung

President

B. Vesterdorf
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-50162 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LAMONT E. KEITH, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:98-CR-81-1
Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lamont E. Keith, federal prisoner # 86855-080, was convicted by a jury in 1999 of possession of cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute and was
s e n t enced to the statutory minimum of 20 years in prison. Keith now s e e k s leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal to challenge the denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). By so moving, Keith challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal was not U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 1 0, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-50162 Document: 00511980610 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2012No. 12-50162

taken i n g o o d faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). Ke ith c ontends that the provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which amended the amounts of crack needed to trigger statutory minimum sentences, should apply to him, and that the limitations set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 on

a district court’s abili t y to grant a reduction effectively render the Sentencing Guidelines mandatory. Keith’s arguments fail. The district c o u r t lacked authority to reduce his sentence below the statutory minimum sentence of 20 years. See United States v . Ca r t e r , 595 F.3d 575, 578-81 (5th Cir. 2010). His argument that he is entitled to a reduction in light of the FSA is without merit. Cf. Dorsey v. United Stat e s , 1 32 S. Ct. 2321, 2335-36 (2012) (“[I]n federal sentencing the ordinary practice is to apply new penalties to defendants not yet sentenced.”). Keith’s challenge to the limitations set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is also meritless. See Dillon v. United States , 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2693 (20 10)

. Keith has failed to demonstrate a nonfr iv o lous issue for appeal. Accordingly, his motion for l e a ve to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

2 Case: 12-50162 Document: 00511980610 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2012
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 815

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify the assessment

and collection of the excise tax on arrows.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 17 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify

the assessment and collection of the excise tax on arrows.

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

3 SECTION 1. SIMPLIFICATION OF IMPOSITION OF EXCISE

4 TAX ON ARROWS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 4161 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition

7 of tax) is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(b) BOWS AND ARROWS, ETC.—

9 ‘‘(1) BOWS.—
2

•S 815 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby im2 posed on the sale by the manufacturer, pro3 ducer, or importer of any bow which has a draw

4 weight of 10 pounds or more, a tax equal to 11

5 percent of the price for which so sold.

6 ‘‘(B) PARTS AND ACCESSORIES.—There is

7 hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufac8 turer, producer, or importer—

9 ‘‘(i) of any part of accessory suitable

10 for inclusion in or attachment to a bow de11 scribed in subparagraph (A), and

12 ‘‘(ii) of any quiver suitable for use

13 with arrows described in paragraph (2),

14 a tax equivalent to 11 percent of the price for

15 which so sold.

16 ‘‘(2) ARROWS.—There is hereby imposed on the

17 sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of

18 any shaft, point, nock, or vane of a type used in the

19 manufacture of any arrow which after its assem20 bly—

21 ‘‘(A) measures 18 inches overall or more in

22 length, or

23 ‘‘(B) measures less than 18 inches overall

24 in length but is suitable for use with a bow de25 scribed in paragraph (1)(A),
3

•S 815 IS

1 a tax equal to 11 percent of the price for which so

2 sold.

3 ‘‘(3) COORDINATION WITH SUBSECTION (a).—

4 No tax shall be imposed under this subsection with

5 respect to any article taxable under subsection (a).’’.

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

7 subsection (a) shall apply to articles sold by the manufac8 turer, producer, or importer after the date of the enact9 ment of this Act.

Æ
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6424 

To require the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish 

a premise plumbing research laboratory, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2016 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To require the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish a premise plumbing research laboratory, 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 ‘‘NIST Plumbing Re5 search Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREMISE PLUMBING RESEARCH. 

7 Not later than one year after the date of the enact8 ment of this Act, the Director of the National Institute 

9 of Standards and Technology (in this Act, referred to as 

10 ‘‘NIST’’) shall— 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6424 IH

1 (1) establish or designate a laboratory to con2 duct research on premise plumbing in relation to 

3 water safety, security, efficiency, sustainability, and 

4 resilience; 

5 (2) conduct an organizational review of all re6 search and other activities related to premise plumb7 ing conducted by Federal entities; and 

8 (3) appoint one or more officers or employees of 

9 the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

10 to liaise with non-Federal entities conducting re11 search or other activities related to premise plumb12 ing. 

13 SEC. 3. REPORT. 

14 Not later than 4 years after the date of the enact15 ment of this Act, and every 4 years thereafter, the Direc16 tor of NIST shall submit to Congress a report on the 

17 progress made by NIST regarding— 

18 (1) the status of the laboratory described in 

19 paragraph (1) of section 2, including any staff des20 ignated to work in such laboratory; 

21 (2) all projects of NIST related to premise 

22 plumbing, including completed projects, projects in 

23 progress, and projects planned for the future; 

24 (3) updates to data relevant to premise plumb25 ing system structure, design, and construction; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6424 IH

1 (4) any progress of private organizations in up2 dating premise plumbing standards. 

3 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 

4 In this Act, the term ‘‘premise plumbing’’ means the 

5 water distribution system located within the property lines 

6 of a property, including all buildings and permanent struc7 tures on such property. Such term includes building sup8 ply and distribution pipes, fixtures, fittings, water heaters, 

9 water-treating and water-using equipment, and all respec10 tive joints, connections, devices, and appurtenances. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 31

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas Yitzhak Rabin, a true hero of Israel, was born in

Jerusalem on March 1, 1922;

Whereas Yitzhak Rabin served in the Israel Defense Forces

for more than two decades, and fought in three wars including service as Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense

Forces during the Six Day War of June 1967;

Whereas Yitzhak Rabin served the people of Israel with great

distinction in a number of government positions, including Ambassador to the United States from 1968 to 1973,

Minister of Defense from 1984 to 1988, and twice as

Prime Minister from 1974 to 1977 and from June 1992

until his assassination;

Whereas under the leadership of Yitzhak Rabin, a framework

for peace between Israel and the Palestinians was established with the signing of the Declaration of Principles on

September 13, 1993, continued with the conclusion of a

peace treaty between Israel and Jordan on October 26,

1994, and continues today;

Whereas on December 10, 1994, Yitzhak Rabin was awarded

the Nobel Prize for Peace for his vision and accomplishments as a peacemaker;

Whereas shortly before his assassination, Yitzhak Rabin said,

‘‘I have always believed that the majority of the people
2

SCON 31 ES

want peace and are ready to take a chance for

peace. . . . Peace is not only in prayers . . . but it is

in the desire of the Jewish people.’’;

Whereas Yitzhak Rabin’s entire life was dedicated to the

cause of peace and security for Israel and its people; and

Whereas on November 4, 1995, Prime Minister Yitzhak

Rabin was assassinated in Tel Aviv, Israel: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) condemns the heinous assassination of

4 Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the strongest pos5 sible terms;

6 (2) extends its deepest sympathy and condo7 lences to the family of Prime Minister Yitzhak

8 Rabin and to all the people of Israel in this moment

9 of tragedy;

10 (3) expresses its admiration for the historic

11 contributions made by Yitzhak Rabin over his long

12 and distinguished career of public service;

13 (4) expresses its support for the government of

14 Acting Prime Minister Shimon Peres; and

15 (5) reaffirms its commitment to the process of

16 building a just and lasting peace between Israel and

17 its neighbors.
3

SCON 31 ES

1 SEC. 2. When the Senate completes its business

2 today, it stand adjourned as a further mark of respect in

3 honor of the late Yitzhak Rabin.

4 SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Senate is directed to

5 transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family

6 of the deceased.

Passed the Senate November 6, 1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 31

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the life and legacy of Yitzhak Rabin.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

t0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148415

JUANITA LEE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 148415

COA: 318489

Wayne CC: 11-009325-AA

STATE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 26, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joshua Lee BEARDEMPHL Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1112

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 2, 2017

Filed: November 7, 2017

James Sanderson Alexander, Benjamin Bejar, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joshua Lee Beardemphl, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Beardemphl directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm charge, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, and the district court1 sentenced him as an armed career criminal. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver, but arguing that Beardemphl’s sentence is illegal because he should not have been classified as an armed career criminal, and without such a classification, his sentence would be above the statutory maximum for his conviction. The government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver.

We conclude that the sentence is not illegal because Beardemphl was properly classified as an armed career .criminal. See United States v. Lindsey, 827 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2016) (Minnesota conviction for second-degree assault qualifies as violent felony under armed career criminal act). We further conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, grant the government’s motion, and dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,072-01

EX P ARTE DEJUAN ANTHONY JORDAN , Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 20160D04054-243-1 IN THE 243RD DISTRICT COURT

F ROM EL P ASO COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted in Indiana for sexual battery
. L ater , Applicant was convicte d i n Texas for failing to reg ister as a sex offe nder and sentenc ed to imprisonment. The District Attorney for El Paso County notified Applicant that the conviction was
err oneous beca

use the Texas D epar

tment of Public Safety

had dete rmined that the e lements of the Indiana sexual battery conviction wer e not substantially simil ar to any Texas offe n s e. T h u s, Applicant was not require d to reg ister in Texas as a sex offe nder under Chapter 62 of the Texas Code2

of C riminal Procedur e. The habea s rec ord shows t hat trial counse l provided ineff ective a ssistance for f ailing to investig ate to discove r this fac t. Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Relief is grante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 20160D04054 in the 243rd District Court of El Paso County

is set aside. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to th e T e xa s D ep a r tm e nt o f Cr iminal J ustice–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Dec ember

19, 2018 Do not publish
Exhibit 35.1
 SERVICER
        COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM
        1123)
  RE: 
        **First Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust
        2006-AA8**
  We
        the
        undersigned authorized officers, of First Horizon Home Loan Corporation,
        and its
        wholly owned subsidiary, First Tennessee Mortgage Services Inc. (collectively,
        the “Servicer”)  pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, do hereby
        certify that:
 1.            
A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period
        from December 1, 2006 and
        through December 31, 2006 and of the Servicer’s performance under applicable
        servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.
 2.            
To the best of our knowledge,
        based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
        all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
        respects throughout such period.
 First
        Horizon Home Loan Corporation
 By:
        /s/ Kim Yowell
 Date: 
03/01/07
 Name: 
Kim
        Yowell
 Title: 
SVP,
        Servicing Manager
 First
        Tennessee Mortgage Services, Inc.
 By:  
        /s/ Terry L. McCoy
 Date: 
        03/01/07
 Name: 
        Terry L. McCoy
 Title: 
        Vice President
|    (i) | the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|    (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |   |                                                                              |
|------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  December 15, 2011 | By:    |  /s/ Michael L. Krall                                                        |   |
|                               |   | Michael L. KrallPresident / Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |

----
#### Paul CAIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James FRAWNER; Hector H. Balderas, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-2074

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed August 16, 2017

Jane Alissa Bernstein, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, for Respondents-Appellees

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. ■

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Robert E. Bacharach, Circuit Judge

In state court, Mr. Paul Cain was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual penetration. After unsuccessfully pursuing state-court remedies, Mr. Cain sought federal habeas relief. The federal district court found that Mr. Cain had not exhausted some of his claims and allowed Mr. Cain a specified time-period to withdraw his unexhausted claims, Mr. Cain did not respond within the designated time-period, and the district court ordered dismissal without prejudice on the ground that Mr. Cain had .failed to exhaust some of his habeas claims. Mr. Cain wants to appeal. But to appeal, he needs a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).

For the certificate of appealability, Mr. Cain must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Mr. Cain would meet this standard only if reasonable jurists could “disagree with the district court’s resolution of his. constitutional claims or ... jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

A federal district court could grant ha-beas relief only if Mr. Cain exhausted all of his habeas claims. *Rose*v. *Lundy,*455 U.S. 509, 521-22, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). Mr. Cain does not deny that some of the habeas claims are unexhausted. But he argues that the court should have stayed the proceedings because any subsequent habeas petition would be procedurally barred. But the district court reasoned that Mr. Cain had failed to show

> • the presence of good cause for the failure to exhaust the claims or

> • the absence of dilatory tactics.

Mr. Cain has not presented a valid reason to disturb the district court’s determination. As a result, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s decision to order dismissal rather than to stay the proceedings. Based on this conclusion, we (1) deny Mr. Cain’s request for a certificate of appealability and (2) dismiss the appeal.