alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Khaled K. SHAHEEN, a.k.a. Khaled K. Shaheen, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-11917 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(November 3, 2017)

Tracia M. King, Lawrence R. Sommer-feld, U.S. Attorney Service—Northern District of Georgia, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nicole Kaplan, W. Matthew Dodge, Stephanie A. Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Khaled K. Shaheen appeals his sentence of 15 months of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6)(A). Shaheen argues that his sentence, at the low end of his advisory guideline range, is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. While Shaheen was on probation for felony theft by taking, a probation officer observed a firearm, lying on a table in Shaheen’s home. Shaheen admitted that he had exercised control over and had posed for photographs with the firearm, but he attributed ownership of the firearm to his wife, who suffers from muscular dystrophy and cannot lift the gun. Sha-heen, who had prior convictions for assault, battery, and theft by taking, had a criminal history category of III and an offense level of 12, which resulted in a recommended guideline range of 15 to 21 months of imprisonment. The district court reasonably determined that a sentence of 15 months was required to address Sha-heen’s “history ■ and characteristics”; the need “to protect the public” from a potential escalation in violence “now that he’s armed himself’; and his desire to undergo rehabilitation “for drugs and his anger management.” Any error committed by the district court in selecting a sentence to accommodate Shaheen’s rehabilitation was invited by Shaheen when he requested a “period of incarceration [to] help him to focus on getting his G.E.D, get clean, and help him move forward to be successful.” Shaheen’s sentence of 15 months of imprisonment, which is well below his maximum statutory penalty of ten years of imprisonment, is reasonable. *See United States v. Croteau,*819 F.3d 1293, 1310 (11th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 254, 196 L.Ed.2d 192 (2016).

We AFFIRM Shaheen’s sentence.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 9- 11 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lPla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Ani ba l Ca rb ajal- Galv an
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lDefe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__

__ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__

__ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Ju ly 24, 2 01 9 Fil ed : J ul y

29 , 20 19 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SHEPHERD, GRASZ, an d KOBES, Ci rcu itJu dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ani ba l Carb ajal- Galv an di rect ly ap pe al s aft er he pl ed gu il ty to il le ga l reen try,
an d th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to a pr is on te rm be l ow th e cal cu la te d Uni te d 1

The Hon or ab le Bet h Ph il li ps , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e 1 W es te rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i.St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on Gui de li ne s Man ua l ran ge
. His co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw, an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And e r s v

. C a li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , qu es ti on in g whe th er Carb ajal- Galv an rece iv ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, an d whe th er Ca rb ajal- Galv an ’s pri so n t erm is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

In it ia ll y , we de cl in e to co ns id er an y in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s on di rect ap pe al

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Her na ndez , 2 81 F.3d74 6, 7 49 (8t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (n ot in g ge ne ral ly an in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m , no t co gn iz ab le on di rect ap pe al , is pr op erl y rai se d in 28 U.S.C. § 2 2 5 5 a c t i o n ). W e fu rth er co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t im po se a su bs t a n t i ve ly un reas on ab le se nt en ce. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1- 62 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (rev ie win g se nt en ce un de r de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d isc re tio n sta

nda rd an d dis cu ss in g subs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss ). In ad di ti on , ha vi ng in de pe nd en tl y

rev ie wedth e rec or d p ur su an t t o Pen so n v . Ohi o , 48 8 U.S. 7 5 (1 98 8) , we fin d no no nf

riv ol ou s is su es fo r ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , we gr an t co un se l’s

m ot io n t o wi th dr aw, an d we a ffi rm
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### Gregory GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HORRY COUNTY; Jimmy A. Richardson, II; Scott Hixon, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-7327

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

Gregory Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions, are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Green appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Green’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Green v. Horry Cty.,*No. 4:17-cv-01304-RBH, 2017 WL 4324843 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Suazo PINEDA, a/k/a Cocho, a/k/a Armando Arellano Valle, a/k/a Pedro Suazo Pineda, a/k/a Francisco Villa Torres, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7033

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 21, 2017

Antonio Suazo Pineda, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Suazo Pineda appeals the district court’s order denying his third 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for, a sentence reduction. In this motion as in his previous motions, Pineda sought a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered offense levels applicable to drug offenses. Noting again that Pineda was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) induction because he was sentenced to the statutory minimum term for his drug offense, the district court denied relief.

In *United States v.*Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010), we held that a district court lacks authority to grant a motion to reconsider its ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Under *Goodwyn,*Pineda had only one opportunity to seek, through a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the benefit of Amendment 782. *See id.*at 235-36. Once the district court ruled on Pineda’s entitlement to relief under Amendment 782, it lacked authority to consider subsequent relief based on the same Amendment, either by way of a third § 3582(c)(2) motion or a motion for reconsideration of the initial order. While we recently determined in *United States v. May,*855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017) that “this prohibition [is] non-jurisdictional, and thus waived when the government fail[s] to assert it below,” the Government properly preserved the issue by asserting the prohibition before the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying relief on Pineda’s third § 3582(c)(2) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented *811in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          39,638
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,946
<PP&E>                                          74,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 110,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,400
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       178,139
<OTHER-SE>                                    (137,117)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   110,165
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,792
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,396
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,937
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (41,803)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (41,803)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (41,803)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (4.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                   STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
               OFFICER REGARDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING
                             TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS

I, J. W. Stewart, state and attest that:

     (1)  To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the covered
          reports of BJ Services Company, and, except as corrected or
          supplemented in a subsequent covered report:

          .    no covered report contained an untrue statement of a material
               fact as of the end of the period covered by such report (or in
               the case of a report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials,
               as of the date on which it was filed); and

          .    no covered report omitted to state a material fact necessary to
               make the statements in the covered report, in light of the
               circumstances under which they were made, not misleading as of
               the end of the period covered by such report (or in the case of a
               report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of the date
               on which it was filed).

     (2)  I have reviewed the contents of this statement with BJ Services
          Company's Audit Committee.

     (3)  In this statement under oath, each of the following, if filed on or
          before the date of this statement, is a "covered report":

          .    the Annual Report on Form 10-K for Fiscal Year ended September
               30, 2001 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
               Commission on December 18, 2001 of BJ Services Company;

          .    all reports on Form 10-Q, all reports on Form 8-K and all
               definitive proxy materials of BJ Services Company filed with the
               Commission subsequent to the filing of the Form 10-K identified
               above; and

          .    any amendments to any of the foregoing.


/s/_J. W. Stewart                     Subscribed and sworn to before me
---------------------------           this 14th day of August, 2002.
J. W. Stewart
Date: August 14, 2002

                                      /s/ Barbara W. Fontenot
                                      --------------------------------
                                      Notary Public

                                      My Commission Expires: July 30, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17379-17380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06418]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11685]


Notice of Public Meeting: International Digital Economy and 
Telecommunication (IDET) Advisory Committee

ACTION: Announcement of a federal advisory committee meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), notice 
is hereby given of a public meeting of the International Digital 
Economy and Telecommunication (IDET) Advisory Committee via 
videoconference on Wednesday, April 27 at 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. (ET). The 
purpose of the meeting is to discuss the committee's next priorities.

DATES: April 27, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact the Designated Federal 
Officer (DFO) Daniel Oates at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9fd6dbdacbdfecebfeebfab1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99d0dddccdd9eaedf8edfcb7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 647-5205.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information about the IDET is 
accessible at https://www.state.gov/international-digital-economy-and-telecommunication-advisory-committee.
    IDET meetings are open to the public, and we encourage anyone 
wanting to attend this virtual meeting to contact <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#632a2726372310170217064d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="662f22233226151207120348010910">[email protected]</span></a> to 
register by COB April 17 with their name, contact information, 
affiliation, and any request for reasonable accommodation. Requests for 
reasonable accommodation made after that time will be considered but 
might

[[Page 17380]]

not be able to be accommodated. The public may have an opportunity to 
provide comments at this meeting at the invitation of the chair. 
Members of the public may also submit a brief comment (less than three 
pages) to the committee in writing to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#226b6667766251564356470c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abe2efeeffebd8dfcadfce85ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a> for inclusion in 
the public minutes of the meeting.

Agenda

Wednesday, April 27 at 1:00 p.m. (ET)

<bullet> Roll call
<bullet> Project Planning
<bullet> Next Steps and Other Business
<bullet> Public Comment
<bullet> Adjournment

Kevin E. Bryant,
Deputy Director, Office of Directives Management, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-06418 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AE-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 11-1458.

#### Campbell *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Dorsey*v. *United States,*567 U. S. 260 (2012).
No. 11-10234.

#### Saucedo-Munoz, aka Saucedo, aka Sauceda-Munoz, aka Miranda *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. BRIAN J. LYSZKOWSKI, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 497 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 18th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

Press Release

SOURCE: Dynegy Inc.

Robert Oelkers Elected to Dynegy Board of Directors

HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 7, 2002--The Board of Directors of Dynegy Inc.
(NYSE:DYN - News) today announced the election of former Texaco executive Robert
C. Oelkers to the company's board of directors and Audit Committee, effective
Aug. 6, 2002.

According to Otis Winters, lead director and chairman of the Governance and
Nominating Committee, Mr. Oelkers brings a background rich in knowledge about
the energy industry, corporate integrity issues and accounting policies and
procedures. "In this time of increased scrutiny and accountability in Corporate
America and energy industry transition, Dynegy is proud to have attracted Bob to
the Board," he said.

For more than 20 years, Mr. Oelkers managed or was a senior executive in charge
of auditing and accounting functions and major business units at Texaco Inc. As
vice president and controller in the late 1990s, he was responsible for the
corporation's accounting and internal audit functions. Most recently, and just
prior to the completion of the ChevronTexaco merger, he was president of
Texaco's worldwide trading unit. A graduate of Pace University in New York, Mr.
Oelkers has held leadership positions on numerous professional, trade
association and community boards.

He replaces Patricia M. Eckert, a telecommunications industry consultant, who
recently announced her resignation from the board. Ms. Eckert became a director
in 2000 when the company acquired Extant Inc., a wholesale communications
network provider. In previous announcements, Dynegy has said it plans to focus
on its core energy businesses going forward.

Dynegy's board of directors now numbers 12, including three members representing
ChevronTexaco, a major shareholder.

Dynegy Inc. is a global energy merchant. Through its owned and contractually
controlled network of physical assets and its marketing, logistics and risk
management capabilities, Dynegy provides solutions to customers in North
America, the United Kingdom and continental Europe. The company's website is
www.dynegy.com.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-240-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF H.B. III

AND C.B., CHILDREN

	------------

	FROM THE 393RD DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellant Henry Bryant, Jr. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s judgment signed May 30, 2007.  Appellant did not file a postjudgment motion to extend the appellate deadline; his notice of appeal was therefore due June 29, 2007.2  But he did not file a notice of appeal until July 2, 2007.

	On July 16, 2007, we notified Appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by July 26, 2007, he filed a response showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.3  No response has been filed.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.4

									PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  August 31, 2007
No. 11-1331.

#### Sattari *v.*CitiMortgage, Inc.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9766.

#### Burnley *v.*Norwood et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 285

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the

public of China.Square by the Government of the People’s Rehis decision to be formally received in TiananmenPresident of the United States should reconsider
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 285

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas 9 years ago on June 4, 1989, thousands of Chinese

students peacefully gathered in Tiananmen Square to

demonstrate their support for freedom and democracy;

Whereas it was with horror that the world witnessed the response of the Government of the People’s Republic of

China as tanks and military units marched into

Tiananmen Square;
2

•HCON 285 EH

Whereas Chinese soldiers of the People’s Republic of China

were ordered to fire machine guns and tanks on young,

unarmed civilians;

Whereas ‘‘children were killed holding hands with their mothers’’, according to a reliable eyewitness account;

Whereas according to the same eyewitness account, ‘‘students

were crushed by armored personnel carriers’’;

Whereas more than 2,000 Chinese pro-democracy demonstrators died that day, according to the Chinese Red Cross;

Whereas hundreds continue to languish in prisons because of

their belief in freedom and democracy;

Whereas 9 years after the massacre on June 4, 1989, the

Government of the People’s Republic of China has yet to

acknowledge the Tiananmen Square massacre; and

Whereas, being formally received in Tiananmen Square, the

President would bestow legitimacy on the Chinese Government’s horrendous actions of 9 years ago: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 President should reconsider his decision to be formally re4 ceived in Tiananmen Square until the Government of the

5 People’s Republic of China acknowledges the Tiananmen

6 Square massacre, pledges that such atrocities will never
3

•HCON 285 EH

1 happen again, and releases those Chinese students still im2 prisoned for supporting freedom and democracy that day.

Passed the House of Representatives June 4, 1998.

Attest:

Clerk.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ASTRAZENECA AB, ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., KINDEVA DRUG DELIVERY L.P., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2023

- 1164

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in No s . 1:18

- cv

- 00193

- IMK

- RWT, 1: 19

- cv

- 203

- IMK

- RWT, Judge Irene M. Keeley.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

The parties jointly move to remand the above

- captioned appeal with each side to bear its own costs and fees

. Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 23-1164 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2023ASTRAZENECA AB v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC

. 2

The motion is granted.

March 7, 2023

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 7, 2023 Case: 23-1164 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 03/07/2023