alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8006

AHMAD CLARENCE GARLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; C. RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; L. CARTLEDGE, Associate Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; C. KENDALL, Associate Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; S. LEWIS, Major, McCormick Correctional Institution; I. CULBREATH, Inmate Grievance Counselor, McCormick Correctional Institution; GEORGE LONG, McCormick Correctional Institution; J. REED, McCormick Correctional Institution; RICHARD P. STROKES, Defendants - Appellees, and PHILIP MORRIS, USA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-00-3024-4-19BF) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 28, 20022 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ahmad Clarence Garland, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Ahmad Clarence Garland appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Garland v. Catoe , No. CA-00-3024-4-19BF (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|International Falls, MN Natural Gas Pipeline Imports From Canada  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|International Falls, MN Natural Gas Pipeline Imports From Canada  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 6,373  | 6,544  | 6,103  | 4,857 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 3,022  | 617    | 602    | 0      | 0      | 22     | 0      |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2445

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Mathias Pizano, * Southern District of Iowa. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: September 5, 2007 Filed: October 4, 2007

___________ Before BYE, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Mathias Pizano guilty of c onspiring to launder money, conspiring to distribute cocaine and marijuana, making false statements to a financial institution, and engaging in transactions in criminally derived propert y. We previously vacated his sentence and remanded for the district court 1 to give further consideration to applying an enhancement for sophisticated laundering under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(3). See United States v. Pizano , 421 F.3d 707, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 546 U.S. 1204 (2006). On remand, the districtcourt applied the enhancement and-2- sentenced Pizano below the resulting adviso ry Guidelines range to 420 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and he has filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
First, it did not violate the Sixth Amendm ent for the district court to engage in judicial fact-finding at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence within an advisory Guidelines system. See United States v. Sandoval-Rodriguez , 452 F.3d 984, 990-91 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 600 (2006). Second, the district court properly understood and complied with this court’s instructions to revisit the sophisticated-laundering enhancement by appl ying the correct legal standard. See Pizano , 421 F.3d at 733-34. Third, Pizano has not shown that his sentence is unreasonable, i.e., that the district court faile d to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave signifi cant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only the appropria te factors but committed a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors. See United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005). Finally, after reviewi ng the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgm ent of the district court, and we deny Pizano’s motion for the appointment of new counsel.

______________________________
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|South Dakota Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|South Dakota Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 163    | 157   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 147    | 147    | 151    | 144    | 140    | 145    | 186    |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 239    | 238    | 239    | 267    | 261    | 256    | 261    | 277    | 334    | 447   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 484    | 521    | 586    |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

CLINTON DRIVER,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

THOMAS MCGINLEY AND HONORABLE

SCOTT DICLAUDIO,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 49 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30 th day of November , 2022, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|Texas Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|Texas Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 6,887  | 4,206 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 10,302 | 8,419  | 7,618  | 6,746  | 8,037  | 7,434  | 6,954  |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6,391  | 6,268  | 6,302  | 6,234  | 5,760  | 4,586  | 4,508  | 4,383  | 5,244  | 4,285 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4,265  | 4,237  | 4,376  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-7541.

#### Joseph *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Poladian, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 646]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered May 15, 2002, convicting him of aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has largely failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was prejudiced by the late disclosure of certain *Rosario*material *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286 [1961], *cert denied*368 US 866 [1961]; *People v Robertson,*275 AD2d 380 [2000]). In any event, reversal is not warranted since the defendant failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice from the delay in disclosure *(see*CPL 240.75; *People v King,*298 AD2d 530, 531 [2002]; *People v Page,*296 AD2d 427, 427-428 [2002]; *People v Small,*286 AD2d 513 [2001]; *People v Sorbello,*285 AD2d 88, 92-93 [2001]). The material was discovered prior to cross-examination of the relevant witness *(see People v Page, supra; People v King, supra*at 531). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|Arkansas Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Arkansas Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 69,945 | 71,353
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 72,901 | 71,848 | 71,494 | 70,928 | 70,523 | 69,856 | 69,318 |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 67,676 | 67,454 | 68,151 | 68,127 | 68,291 | 68,438 | 68,450 | 68,552 | 68,568 | 68,501
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 68,729 | 68,877 | 68,788 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50571

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS ALONSO OCURA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-965-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesus Alonso Ocura raises

arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d

624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50571

2

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Arthur BIBO.

No. 3805.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

June 9, 1950.

A. Devitt Vanech, Assistant Attorney-General, and John F. Cotter, Fred W. Smith and Roger P. Marquis, Attorneys, Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., and Everett M. Grantham, United States Attorney, and Maurice Sanchez, Assistant United ¡States Attorney, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellant.

Seth & Montgomery, Santa Fe, N. M., for appellee.

Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of District Court vacated and cause remanded May 9, 1950, with directions to dismiss the cause of action, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1508 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1508

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the definition of a rural community for eligibility for 
            economic recovery funds, and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1508

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the definition of a rural community for eligibility for 
            economic recovery funds, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That section 2374(3) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6612(3)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(3) The term `rural community' means--
                    ``(A) any town, township, municipality, or other 
                similar unit of general purpose local government, or 
                any area represented by a not-for-profit corporation or 
                institution organized under State or Federal law to 
                promote broad based economic development, or unit of 
                general purpose local government, as approved by the 
                Secretary, that has a population of not more than 
                10,000 individuals, is located within a county in which 
                at least 15 percent of the total primary and secondary 
                labor and proprietor income is derived from forestry, 
                wood products, and forest-related industries such as 
                recreation, forage production, and tourism and that is 
                located within the boundary, or within 100 miles of the 
                boundary, of a national forest; or
                    ``(B) any county that is not contained within a 
                Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the United 
                States Office of Management and Budget, in which at 
                least 15 percent of the total primary and secondary 
                labor and proprietor income is derived from forestry, 
                wood products, and forest-related industries such as 
                recreation, forage production, and tourism and that is 
                located within the boundary, or within 100 miles of the 
                boundary, of a national forest.''.

            Passed the Senate September 30 (legislative day, September 
      27), 1993.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Imports From Yemen (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Imports From Yemen (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr   | May | Jun | Jul | Aug   | Sep   | Oct   | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ----- | ----- | --- | ---
|2011                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | 3,115 |     |     |     | 3,122 | 3,106 | 3,109 |     |    
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-7011.

#### Flanagan *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.