alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Andrew DIEHL, also known as David A. Diehl, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51455 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 28, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David Andrew Diehl, Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

David Andrew Diehl, federal prisoner # 53214-018, appeals the district court’s order in a discovery dispute pertaining to Diehl’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding.'Diehl was convicted in 2011 of 10 counts of production of child pornography. After a bench trial, he was sentenced to 600 months of imprisonment. This court affirmed, and on October 5, 2015, the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Diehl filed a discovery motion in the district court in anticipation of seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied the motion, and the government then moved pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) for an order directing Diehl and his former attorney to return all discovery materials previously provided to them. The magistrate judge ordered Diehl to explain what discovery materials he needed and why. Diehl objected, and the district court overruled the objections and affirmed. Diehl then filed a timely notice of appeal.

During the course of the discovery dispute, Diehl timely filed a § 2255 motion in the district court. That motion is still pending.

We are obligated to examine the basis of our own jurisdiction. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Generally, *394our jurisdiction is limited to the review of final orders, qualified interlocutory orders, and certain collateral orders. *Goodman v. Harris Cty.,*443 F.3d 464, 467 (6th Cir. 2006). Discovery orders are generally not appealable. *Id.*Here, Diehl seeks to appeal an order requiring him to explain what discovery he needs and why. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s interlocutory ruling. *See id.*at 467-69.

Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Diehl’s motion for leave to file a supplementary brief is DENIED as moot.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 246 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 246

 To authorize the use of additional funds for salaries and expenses of 
the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation 
              and Related Matters, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 1996

 Mr. Dole submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize the use of additional funds for salaries and expenses of 
the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation 
              and Related Matters, and for other purposes.

    Resolved,   

SECTION 1. FUNDS FOR SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

    There shall be made available from the contingent fund of the 
Senate out of the Account for Expenses for Inquiries and 
Investigations, for use not later than June 17, 1996, by the Special 
Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related 
Matters (hereafter in this Resolution referred to as the ``special 
committee''), established by Senate Resolution 120, 104th Congress, 
agreed to May 17, 1995 (as amended by Senate Resolution 153, 104th 
Congress, agreed to July 17, 1995) to carry out the investigation, 
study, and hearings authorized by that Senate Resolution--
            (1) a sum equal to not more than $450,000.
                    (A) for payment of salaries and other expenses of 
                the special committee; and
                    (B) not more than $350,000 of which may be used by 
                the special committee for the procurement of the 
                services of individual consultants or organizations 
                thereof; and
            (2) such additional sums as may be necessary for agency 
        contributions related to the compensation of employees of the 
        special committee.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

    (a) Hearings.--Not later than June 14, 1996, the special committee 
shall complete the investigation, study, and hearings authorized by 
Senate Resolution 120, 104th Congress, agreed to May 17, 1995 (as 
amended by Senate Resolution 153, 104th Congress, agreed to July 17, 
1995).
    (b) Report.--Not later than June 17, 1996, the special committee 
shall submit to the Senate the final public report required by section 
9(b) of Senate Resolution 120, 104th Congress, agreed to May 17, 1995 
(as amended by Senate Resolution 153, 104th Congress, agreed to July 
17, 1995) on the results of the investigation, study, and hearings 
conducted pursuant to that Resolution.
                                 <all>
```
DARRYL DEWAYNE SCOTT,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2568

Opinion filed August 4, 2016.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

Darryl Dewayne Scott, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits. 

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 30 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 30

   Providing for the reappointment of Homer Alfred Neal as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 20 (legislative day, March 16), 1995

Mr. Moynihan (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Simpson) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for the reappointment of Homer Alfred Neal as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 
reason of the expiration of the term of Homer Alfred Neal of Michigan 
on December 6, 1995, is filled by the reappointment of the incumbent 
for a term of six years, effective December 7, 1995.
                                 <all>
```
[MULTIPLIER]   1,000
Part II.  Other information,   Item 6a.
Exhibit 11.1
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                           HMT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
                                  (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
                                            December 31,        December 31,
                                        ------------------- -------------------
                                          1997      1996      1997      1996
                                        --------- --------- --------- ---------
<S>                                     <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Basic:
Weighted average shares outstanding
  for the period ......................   42,768    40,673    41,912    40,346
                                        --------- --------- --------- ---------
Shares used in computing per
  share amounts .......................   42,768    44,229    41,912    44,150
                                        ========= ========= ========= =========
Net income available for common
  stockholders ........................  $20,470   $13,074   $54,903   $45,574
                                        ========= ========= ========= =========
Net income available for common
  stockholders per share ..............    $0.48     $0.30     $1.31     $1.03
                                        ========= ========= ========= =========
Diluted:
Weighted average shares outstanding
  for the period ......................   42,768    40,673    41,912    40,346
Net effect of dilutive stock options
  based on the treasury stock method
  using average market price ..........    2,647     3,556     2,885     3,804
Assumed conversion of 5 3/4%
  convertible subordinated notes ......    9,684        --     9,684        --
                                        --------- --------- --------- ---------
Shares used in computing per share
  amounts .............................   55,099    44,229    54,481    44,150
                                        ========= ========= ========= =========
Net income available for common
  stockholders ........................   20,470    13,074    54,903    45,574

Add 5 3/4% convertible subordinated
  note interest, net of interest
  capitalized and income tax effect ...    1,841        --     4,717        --
                                        --------- --------- --------- ---------
Net income available for common
  stockholders ........................  $22,311   $13,074   $59,620   $45,574
                                        ========= ========= ========= =========
Net income available for common
  stockholders per share ..............    $0.40     $0.30     $1.09     $1.03
                                        ========= ========= ========= =========



</TABLE>
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 178

Designating the second Sunday in October of 1995 as ‘‘National Children’s

Day’’, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 29 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 25), 1995

Mr. PRESSLER (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BOND, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr.

D’AMATO, Mr. DOLE, Mr. GORTON, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. SPECTOR,

Mr. STEVENS, Mr. WARNER, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. KERREY, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. LEVIN, and Ms. MIKULSKI) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating the second Sunday in October of 1995 as

‘‘National Children’s Day’’, and for other purposes.

Whereas the people of the United States should celebrate

children as the most valuable asset of the Nation;

Whereas the children represent the future, hope, and inspiration of the United States;

Whereas the children of the United States should be allowed

to feel that their ideas and dreams will be respected because adults in the United States take time to listen;

Whereas many children of the United States face crises of

grave proportions, especially as they enter adolescent

years;
2

•SRES 178 ATS

Whereas it is important for parents to spend time listening

to their children on a daily basis;

Whereas modern societal and economic demands often pull

the family apart;

Whereas encouragement should be given to families to set

aside a special time for all family members to engage together in family activities;

Whereas adults in the United States should have an opportunity to reminisce on their youth to recapture some of

the fresh insight, innocence, and dreams that they may

have lost through the years;

Whereas the designation of a day to commemorate the children of the United States will provide an opportunity to

emphasize to children the importance of developing an

ability to make the choices necessary to distance themselves from impropriety and to contribute to their communities;

Whereas the designation of a day to commemorate the children of the Nation will emphasize to the people of the

United States the importance of the role of the child

within the family and society;

Whereas the people of the United States should emphasize to

children the importance of family life, education, and

spiritual qualities; and

Whereas children are the responsibility of all Americans, thus

everyone should celebrate the children of the United

States, whose questions, laughter, and tears are important to the existence of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
3

•SRES 178 ATS

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates the second Sun2 day in October of 1995 as ‘‘National Children’s Day’’ and

3 requests that the President issue a proclamation calling

4 on the people of the United States to observe the day with

5 appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. SERGIO ROMAN BARRIENTOS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 10423
D.C. No. 2:16

- cr - 00046

- TLN

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021 * *
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
S ergio Roman Barrientos appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion , s ee United
States v. Aruda , 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) , we affirm

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

NOV 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 10423

The district court assumed that Barrientos’s medical conditions and the risks posed by COVID

- 19 constituted “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for
release , but denied the motion after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

. See United States v. Kell er , 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny a compassionate release motion under § 3553(a) without first making a final determination as to whether defendant has established extraordinary and compelling reasons). 1 Barrientos contends that the district court abused its
discretion in its § 3553(a) analysis . The record shows that the district court considered Barrientos’s arguments for release, but reasonably concluded they were outweighed by the seriousness of Barrientos’s “sophisticated, egregious” fraud scheme, the fact he had served only 23 months of a 168

- month sentence, and the prison’s ability to care for his medical needs. Contrary to Barrientos’s contention
that the district court treated his low

- end Guidelines sentence as a bar to relief, the court concluded that several of his mitigating circumstances

– age, medical conditions, lack of criminal history

– were already acco unted for in that sentence. In light of the deference owed to this discretionary decision, we cannot conclude
the district court abused its discretion. See Keller , 2 F.4th at 1284; s ee also United

1 Because the district court relied on the § 3553 (a) factors to deny Barrientos’s motion, we need not address his argument that the di strict court applied a more restrictive definition of “extraordinary and compelling” reasons than the one recognized in Aruda

.3 20

- 10423

States v. Gutierrez

- Sanchez , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, the court did not rely on any clearly erroneous f indings

. See United States v. Graf

, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010)

. A FFIRMED.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 977

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1995

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To correct certain references in the Bankruptcy Code.

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

3 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa4 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

5 SECTION 1. REFERENCE.

6 Section 1228 of title 11, United States Code, is

7 amended by striking ‘‘section 1222(b)(10)’’ each place it

8 appears and inserting ‘‘section 1222(b)(9)’’.

Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day,

September 25), 1995.

Attest: KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

Secretary.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD. FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         399,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  315,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,602)
<INVENTORY>                                    160,617
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               968,976
<PP&E>                                       2,350,375
<DEPRECIATION>                               (450,715)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,264,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          423,893
<BONDS>                                      1,813,912
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,053,809
<COMMON>                                         2,971
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,681,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,264,588
<SALES>                                        934,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               934,886
<CGS>                                          791,579
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  961,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             125,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,124
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (19,445)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (297,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (349,086)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.18)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 141 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 141

          To authorize representation by Senate Legal Counsel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 23 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

    Mr. Dole (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
          To authorize representation by Senate Legal Counsel.
Whereas, in the case of William D. (Bill) Peterson II v. The Honorable Senator 
        Orrin G. Hatch, No. 95-C-0352-S, pending in the United States District 
        Court for the District of Utah, the plaintiff has named Senator Orrin G. 
        Hatch as the defendant; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1) (1994), the 
        Senate may direct its counsel to defend Members of the Senate in civil 
        actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senator Orrin G. Hatch in the case of William D. (Bill) Peterson II v. 
The Honorable Senator Orrin G. Hatch.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6141

RICHARD L. GALIMORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:11-cv-00510-LO-TCB)

Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 30, 2012

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard L. Galimore, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard L. Galimore seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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 petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Galimore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED