alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sherman Edward WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-15495 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 23, 2018)

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

Dashene Cooper, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Andrew Horn, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Jill E. Steinberg, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sherman Williams appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his 192-month sentence for armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Williams argues that'his sentence was illegal because *Johnson v. United States,*576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), invalidated the - “risk-of-force” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), and because his armed bank robbery conviction is not a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). Because we have previously concluded both that *Johnson*did not invalidate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) and that armed bank robbery is a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A), we affirm.

When we granted Williams a certificate of appealability (COA), we had not yet resolved the question of whether *Johnson,*which invalidated the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), also invalidated the “risk-of-force” clause contained in § 924(c)(3)(B). But we have since determined that it did not, and we are bound by this conclusion. *See Ovalles v. United States,*861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). Thus, in light of *Ovalles,*Williams’s first claim is without merit.

We have also previously determined that a conviction for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), “clearly meets the requirement for an underlying felony offense, as set out in § 924(c)(3)(A).” *In re Hines,*824 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2016). Williams argues that *In re Hines*“has no precedential effect” here because it was an order on an application for a second or successive *677§ 2255 motion, but we have made it clear that “our prior-panel-precedent rule applies with equal force as to prior panel decisions published in the context of applications to file second or successive petitions.” *In re Lambrix,*776 F.3d 789, 794 (11th Cir. 2015). Thus, our holding in *In re Hines*is binding precedent, and it forecloses Williams’s second argument.

*Johnson*did not invalidate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), and armed bank robbery is a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). *Ovalles,*861 F.3d at 1259; *In re Hines,*824 F.3d at 1337. Therefore, we affirm the denial of Williams’s motion to vacate his sentence.

AFFIRMED.
Search
 Search
  Login
 Toggle navigation
                Home
    
        Families
    
        Our Missing
        
            Past Conflicts
    
        Recently Accounted For
    
        World War II
        
            World War II Summary
    
        Battle of Tarawa
    
        Attack on Pearl Harbor
    
        Korean War
        
            Korean War Summary
    
        Battle of Chosin Reservoir
    
        Battle of Unsan
    
        Korean Air Battles
    
        The Inchon Campaign
    
        The Pusan Perimeter
    
        The DMZ Campaigns
    
        Korean War Disinterments
    
        Operation Glory
    
        POW Camps
    
        Vietnam War
        
            Vietnam War Summary
    
        Vietnam War Identification Project
    
        Tet Offensive
    
        Battle of Khe Sanh
    
        Mayaguez Incident
    
        Battle of Ia Drang
    
        Lam Son
    
        Cold War
    
        Gulf Wars & Libya
    
        Unknowns
    
        Searchable List of the Missing
    
        Searchable Map of the Missing
    
        News & Stories
        
            Recent News & Stories
    
        News Releases
    
        Livestreams
    
        Year In Review
    
        Media Gallery
    
        Resources
        
            FAQs
    
        AFMES DNA Laboratory
    
        DPAA Laboratory
    
        Briefing Videos
    
        Science Videos
    
        Publicly Released Documents
    
        Family/VSO Update Notes
    
        Family Member Guide
    
        POW/MIA Day Toolkit
    
        USRJC
    
        Volunteer
    
        About
        
            Leadership
    
        Vision-Mission-Values
    
        DPAA Organizational Chart
    
        Contact
        
            Contact Us
    
        Join Us
        
            Careers
    
        Report a Site
    
        Donate to the Mission DPAA In the News
    >View All DPAA In The News StoriesTranslate this page:DPAA Video
    View on YouTubePast Conflicts
    **U.S. Servicemembers and Civilians Missing from Past Conflicts**
   
   WWII
   KOREAN WAR
   VIETNAM WAR
   COLD WAR
   OTHER CONFLICTSServicemember ProfilesStories & Releases
    >View all Stories & Releases

                

                

                ***Text/HTML***
    Sample text goes here.
                    Livestream
                    Donate HerePoster Orders

                External Site Links
    About DoD // Top Issues // News

Photos & Videos // Military/DoD Websites // Contact

DoD Inspector General // Link Disclaimer // Recovery Act

FOIA  USA.gov // No FEAR Act // Join the Military

DoD Careers // Privacy & Security // Web Policy

Site MapSTAY CONNECTED:
 Copyright (c) 2024 Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency
                        Terms Of Use
                            |
					        Privacy Statement
|     |                                                                                                                                     |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (a) | Section 1.01 of the Credit Agreement shall be amended by amending and restating in their entirety the below definitions as follows: |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | Section 2.07(a) shall be amended by deleting the first sentence in its entirety and replacing it with “On each of August 22, 2014, August 21, 2015 and August 22, 2016, the Borrower shall repay the principal of the Loans in an aggregate amount equal to |

----

|     |                                                                                                                                                                      |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (c) | Section 2.08(d) of the Credit Agreement shall be amended by deleting the date “February 22, 2014” and replacing it with “February 23, 2015.” |

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1550

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Joaquin Bravo Flores, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2011

Filed: December 16, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joaquin Bravo Flores was indicted on a charge of being an illegal alien in

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). 

Flores moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(5)(A) was facially

unconstitutional in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The

district court denied the motion, and Flores appeals. Agreeing with the Fifth Circuit 1

that the protections of the Second Amendment do not extend to aliens illegally

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.
present in this country, United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437 (5thCir. 2011),

petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 2, 2011) (No. 11-7200), we affirm. 

______________________________

-2-
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2466

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Derrick Maurice Scott

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: December 28, 2023

Filed: January 29, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Derrick Maurice Scott appeals after a jury found him guilty of four drug and

firearm offenses. The district court1

 imposed the statutory-minimum prison sentence

1The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.
on Count 2, and varied downward from the Guidelines and imposed sentences of time

served on Counts 1, 3, and 4. Scott’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In the Anders brief,

counsel challenges the sentences imposed on Counts 1, 3, and 4, arguing that the

district court abused its discretion by not imposing an even lower sentence or clearly

erred by improperly weighing the sentencing factors. 

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a

substantively unreasonable sentence. The record shows that the court considered the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining

that a sentencing court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor,

gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error

of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors). 

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court and grant counsel leave to withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-
Capitol Building Room 2.41-South Phone; (785) 296-3232 300 SW 1Oth Street Fax: (785) 368-8788 Topeka, KS 66612 governor@ks.gov SamBrownback
. GO\emor May4,2012 Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, KS 66101 RE: Proposed Listing oftheformer United Zinc

### &Associated Smelters Site, lola, Kan
. on the National Priorities List DearAdministrator Brooks: Thank you for your letter of April 3, 2012, describing the proposed listing of the former United Zinc & Associated Smelters site on the National Priorities List (NPL). The site, as described in your letter, would include property in and around the City of lola, located west of Highway 169 and excluding those areas known to be uncontaminated orthatare being addressed by other State Response Programs
. Stafffrom the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) indicates that the United Zinc Site is a former smelting operation, which operated in the early 1900's
. lead, arsenic and cadmium contamination from operations at the facility have resulted in primarily lead contamination scattered throughout various residential areas surrounding the facility
. Overthe last several years, the removal actions conducted consisted of removing lead-contaminated soil from residential yards. Approximately $2 million of Federal funding has been spent thus far and additional funding is needed to finish this large project. There are still numerous residential and commercial propertiesthat are negatively impacted by this contamination. KDHE and EPA have held several public meetings withthe lola City Council to discuss the situation and future remedies. KDHE has indicated understanding that because substantial remedial work remains to be conducted at this site, this work can most effectively be addressed through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act (CERCLA). As indicated by KDHE and your Jetter, the City of lola supports listing ofthe former UnitedZinc site so the remaining corrective action can be completed
. Based on information provided by KDHE, the State of Kansas supports the decision to proceed with listing of the United Zinc & Associated Smelters site on the NPL. Please contact Mr. John Mitchell, Director of the Division of Environment at KDHE at (785) 296-1535, should you have any questions
.

Governor
cc: Robert Moser, Secretary, KDHE John Mitchell, DOE Director, KDHE The HonorableWilliam 

### A. Shirley, Mayor, City of lola
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                         3,787
<SECURITIES>                                   1,115
<RECEIVABLES>                                    269
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                25,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              0
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         345
<OTHER-SE>                                    24,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  25,678
<SALES>                                          801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,321
<CGS>                                            197
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  630
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     630
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .17


</TABLE>
# DTRA and Ministry of Health of Ukraine Strengthen Commitment to Transparency and Health Security

/ Published Nov. 9, 2023
dtra-pa@mail.mil
NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

# Building Conservation Connections using the principles of

# GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

www.nps.gov/rtca www.nps.gov/rtcaNPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

# Green Infrastructure

framework for conservation/managed growth NETWORK - natural/working lands - connections APPROACH - Protection - strategic - proactive - predictability APPROACH - Implementation - multiple goals/supporters - stakeholders/partners - diverse financial plan LAND CONSERVATION - biodiversity/environmental function - connecting fragmented lands WATERSHED MANAGEMENT -focus protection on sub watersheds - priority lands for water resources COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS - land use allocation + management - linking urban/suburban/rural lands LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION - effectively manage land and water - perspective for informed decisions -targeting priority areas - collaborative problem solvingNPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

# Land Conservation green infrastructure to strategic conservation planning Cacapon and Lost Rivers Land Trust, West VirginiaNPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

# Watershed Management Deer Creek, Maryland sub -watersheds to protect Carr’s Creek, New York Riparian landownersNPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

# Comprehensive Land Use Plans informing local land use decisions - protecting resources building conservation community to enhance implementation of GI plan Frederick County, MarylandNPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

# Large Landscape Conservation protecting land \water across landscape types and scales Upper Susquehanna Basin priority lands vulnerable to development priority landsNPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

# Connecting Communities to Parks restoring environmental function Baltimore - Washington Parkway Addressing storm water run off, re - creating wetlands and day- lighting Quincy Run implementing Cheverly’s GreenPlan using a GI approachNPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

# In the beginner's mind there 

# are many possibilities; in the expert's mind there are few .

- Shunryu Suzuki
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 11--STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                      Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                           March 31,                      March 31,
                                    ------------------------     --------------------------
                                       1997         1996             1997          1996
                                    -----------  -----------     -----------    -----------
<S>                                 <C>          <C>             <C>            <C>
PRIMARY:
   Average shares outstanding         7,126,444    5,378,766       6,823,108      5,372,418
   Net effect of dilutive stock
     options and warrants--based
     on the treasury stock method
     using average market price         173,262      306,364         221,627        250,070
                                    -----------  -----------     -----------    -----------
TOTAL                                 7,299,706    5,685,130       7,044,734      5,622,488
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========    ===========

Net income                          $ 1,267,000  $ 1,047,000     $ 4,230,000    $ 2,017,000
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========    ===========

Per share amount                    $       .17  $       .18     $       .60    $       .36
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========    ===========


FULLY DILUTED:
   Average shares outstanding         7,126,444    5,378,766       6,823,108      5,372,418
   Net effect of dilutive stock
     options and warrants--based
     on the treasury stock method
     using the higher of ending
     or average market price            173,262      329,522         221,627        322,872
                                    -----------  -----------     -----------    -----------
TOTAL                                 7,299,706    5,708,288       7,044,734      5,695,290
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========    ===========

Net income                          $ 1,267,000  $ 1,047,000     $ 4,230,000    $ 2,017,000
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========    ===========
Per share amount                    $       .17  $       .18     $       .60    $       .35
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 11


COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS AND SHARES
USED IN ARRIVING AT NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               Primary and Fully Diluted
                                                               -------------------------

                                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                                  September 30, 1997
                                                                  ------------------
<S>                                                                      <C>       
     Earnings:

     Net earnings                                                        $  159,292
                                                                         ----------

     Less:  Dividends on preferred stock                                       --

     Net earnings applicable to common stock                             $  159,292
                                                                         ==========

     Computation of weighted number of shares outstanding:
     ----------------------------------------------------

     Shares outstanding on a diluted basis                                5,597,606
                                                                         ----------
</TABLE>




                                       10
The investigative

Process I Recording Information I Note-taking Recording your evidence :- I What kinds of evidence do you collect? I How do you preserve it? I Observations and interviews I Field notes Summaries I Physical evidence The thing itself; chain; analysis I Demonstrative evidence Represents or summarizes How to Remember? I Document
it! I Field Notes I LogsV

I InvestigativeV (Narrative) Report

1FeId Notes

I Informs youand others I Preserves information atthe time it is heard/observed I Quick, efficient, portable Stye... I Outhne form I Numbered 1 2 column;

3 column IBullets I Pictures, mapsor diagrams N Key words or phrases I Whole or partial quotes
4. When?

1. During interview I After interview I BOTH!

2Other Methods... I Audo tape I Videotape To quote or not to quote... I It depends... [Does
a summary statement sufficiently and accurately capture the statement? I Isthe quote essenti& to the violation? I How much of the quote do you need?

3