alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-7127.

#### Christopher James Vargas, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1078, 131 S. Ct. 632,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9356.

178 L. Ed. 2d 508,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 339 Fed. Appx. 428.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 3, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00021

- CV

Nancy ALANIS

, Appellant

v.

U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION , as successor trustee to Bank of America, National Assocation, as successor by Merger to Lasal le Bank, M.A., as trustee for the MLMI Trust Series

2006

- He6, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CI

- 01238 Honorable Donna S. Rayes , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On January 19, 202 1 , appellant filed her notice of appeal. On February 2, 2021, Ms. Amy Hinds, the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal filed a notice with this court, stating appellant has failed (1) to request in writing that she pr epare the reporter’s record and (2) to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter’s

record. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(b)(1) (explaining that the request to the court reporter must designate the exhibits and the portions of the procee dings to be included in the reporter’s record); id

. 35.3(b) (court reporter is responsible for preparing and filing the reporter’s record if (1) notice of appeal has been filed, (2) appellant has requested the reporter’s record be prepared, and (3) appella nt has paid the fee for preparation of the record, has made arrangements to pay the fee, or is entitled to appeal without paying the fee).

Appellant is ORDERED to file written proof to this court no later than February 15,

2021 that she has requested t he official court reporter to prepare the reporter’s report in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6 and has filed a copy of the request with

the trial court clerk. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(b)(2).

We further ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court no later

than February 15, 202 1 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee.If appellan t fails to respond within the time provided, this court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a

decision. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 3rd day of February, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3931

_____________________________

EDWARD STEINER,

Appellant,

v.

RICKY D. DIXON, FDOC,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

J. Lee Marsh, Judge.

August 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, KELSEY and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Edward Steiner, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Adam D.G. 

Wright, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of 

Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
No. 10-11047.

#### Cleveland McLean, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 805, 132 S. Ct. 377,

181 L. Ed. 2d 5,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6466.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 425 Fed. Appx. 222.
No. 11-5800.

#### Joseph Slovinec, Petitioner v. Ronald E. Meisburg, former General Counsel of National Labor Relations Board.

565 U.S. 922, 132 S. Ct. 348,

181 L. Ed. 2d 219,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7050,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 412 Fed. Appx. 314.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19211]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 22, 1998.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Proposals regarding building projects at a Federal Reserve Bank 
and Branch.
    2. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    3. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board, 202-452-3204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.bog.frb.fed.us for an electronic announcement that not only 
lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information 
about the meeting.

    Dated: July 15, 1998.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-19211 Filed 7-15-98; 10:33 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
OLEM/OSRTI

Washington, DC 20460

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL) 

***Proposed Site*** April 2016 

ELDORADO CHEMICAL CO., INC. Live Oak, Texas

Bexar County

 Site Location:

The site is located northwest of the city of San Antonio in the suburb of Live Oak, Bexar County, Texas.

 Site History:

The Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. was a former manufacturer of cleaning products from 1978 through 2007. The site 

consists of a ground water plume of chlorinated solvents originating from historical releases of chemicals used in the 

facility’s manufacturing operations. 

 Site Contamination/Contaminants:

Soil and ground water are contaminated with chlorinated solvents including, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, 

dichloroethene and vinyl chloride. These contaminants were found within the alluvial ground water with the potential 

to release into the underlying Edwards Aquifer. 

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: 

An estimated 215,722 residents in the city of Live Oak, city of Universal City, city of Selma, city of Converse, 

Randolph Air Force Base, and city of San Antonio receive drinking water from ground water. This population may 

potentially be exposed to the contaminants that resulted from historical manufacturing operations. 

 Response Activities (to date):

No federal response actions have been taken. The property owner conducted limited cleanup activities between 1984 

and 1986, including the removal of soil at visibly contaminated areas. 

 Need for NPL Listing:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) referred the site to the EPA due to the chlorinated solvent 

plume, use of ground water for drinking, and the presence of geologic conditions favorable for migration of 

contaminants. Without identification and investigation of the source of ground water contamination and remediation of 

the contaminated ground water plume, public and private wells may be contaminated. Other federal and state cleanup 

programs were evaluated, but are not viable at this time. The EPA received a letter of support for placing this site on 

the NPL from the state of Texas. 

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may 

change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent 

FR notices.] 

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure 

to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be 

found on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
EXHIBIT 23
CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the use of our report dated January 28, 1998 in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K  relating to the  Consolidated  Financial  Statements of F&M
National  Corporation  and  Subsidiaries,  appearing  under  Item  8,  Financial
Statements  and  Supplementary  Data,   including,   without   limitation,   the
incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Prospectuses  constituting  part  of  the
Registration  Statements on Form S-8  (#2-77374  and  #33-47685) of F&M National
Corporation.


                      Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C.


March 5, 1998
Winchester, Virginia
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RELIEF

Appellate case name: Professional Advantage Software Solutions, Inc. v. West Gulf 

Maritime Association Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-15-01006-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-58827

Trial court: 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County

On December 10, 2015, appellant, Professional Advantage Software Solutions, 

Inc., filed an emergency motion to stay the trial court proceedings. Appellee, West Gulf 

Maritime Association Inc. filed a response to the emergency motion. By order dated 

December 15, 2015, we denied the emergency relief. On December 22, 2015, appellant 

filed a motion for rehearing en banc. Appellee filed a response to the motion for 

rehearing en banc. After further consideration, we grant appellant’s request for 

temporary relief and stay all trial proceedings until further orders of this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 29.3. The motion for rehearing en banc is denied as moot. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown.

Date: December 31, 2015
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

mniteb ~tates <!Court of ~eals 

for !be jf eberaI <!Circuit 

ROLLAND MARSHALL, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

2012-7071 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in 09-4778, Judge Robert N. Davis. 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 

Rolland Marshall moves for a 90-day extension of 

time to obtain counsel. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 
MARSHALL v. DVA 2 

The motion is granted to the extent that Marshall's 

opening brief is due within 90 days of the date of filing of 

this order. No further extensions should be anticipated. 

MAR 09 2012 

Date 

cc: Rolland Marshall 

Jeanne E. Davidson, Esq. 

s21 

FOR THE COURT 

lsI Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

FILED 

U.s. COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

MAR U 9 2012 

JANHDRBAty 

• ClERK
oo” 4 ) .

DD FORM 1348-1A, JUL 91 (EG) ISSUE RELEASE/RECEIPT Page 1 of 1
2 4/4/415/5 S|S/5/5 616161616 7,747/7 7/8) 1. PRICE 31 3.
AAG alsls 7 He 272]2]8/2 4 BHABE i AB ABE BAB seysisié HE HA 3 123 HEBHBBE ‘TOTAL 2 SHEE Woier4 ] S3Yp024
DI RI M U I] QUANTITY S| SUPPLE- [S| F DIS- | PRO- P |REQ'D] A RI ojciyM UNIT PRICE DOLLARS cTs
© Dj PROM /& NS EB] MENTARY |I| U TRI- | JECT R DEL D {lols 4. Mark For: S¥D024
cE s| |r s R| appress |G] n | BU- I | DATE} V 2\n]t| [pontars ors DLA DISPOSITION SERVICES
N TU D TION D DLA DISP SVCS BRAGG
T E FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000
iam FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000
supeu| | faloooo2| byp024M h2) Rp bz9 yf lb 0010/8 0fo000021/6 0} 54
24. a 5.DOC DATE 6.NMPFC 7.PRT RATE | 8. TYPE CARGO 9.PS
DOCUMENT Outbound Del Num: 8114 U
Surrix 8021291908/000010
Boras) 10.QTY RECD Ti.UP | 12.UNIT WEIGHT] 13.UNIT CUBE | 14.urc | 15.SL|
W9046W8108059BL BA 1.000 3.000 0

16. FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NOMENCLATURE

SU ents

1615010957079 WEIGHT ,ROTARY WING
18. TY CONT 19.NO CONT 20.TOTAL WEIGHT | 21-TOTAL CUBE

QTY (25-29) 22 23.DATE RECEIVED

prar(s4=s6) 00002 h

pra {5453 AGUEA00002A0001080 SMa lf
7

27
ADDITIONAL
et i Demil Not Required = Q
|
in

DRMO INSUT
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 804 LT Case No. 2020

- CF

- 002175

_____________________________
K EITH L EE W ILLIAMS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Jeb Branham , Judge

.
Matthew J. Metz, Publi c Defender
, and Jane C. Almy, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.

September 12, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L AMBERT , S O UD , and P RATT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
IB 

Union Calendar No. 375 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2854 

[Report No. 116–468] 

To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

to prohibit the use of neonicotinoids in a National Wildlife Refuge, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2019 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ (for herself, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. 

HUFFMAN, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. 

NORTON, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. COHEN, 

Ms. PINGREE, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Ms. BONAMICI, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. 

RASKIN, Ms. HAALAND, and Mrs. RADEWAGEN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

AUGUST 7, 2020 

Additional sponsors: Mr. MEEKS, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. AGUILAR, Ms. KUSTER of 

New Hampshire, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. 

DEFAZIO, Ms. GABBARD, Mr. CASTEN of Illinois, Ms. SLOTKIN, Mr. 

LOWENTHAL, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. SUOZZI, Mr. MORELLE, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois, Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. TLAIB, Mr. RYAN, Mr. 

CARBAJAL, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. BASS, Ms. LEE of California, 

Mr. NEGUSE, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. DAVIS of California, and 

Mrs. BEATTY

AUGUST 7, 2020 

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources; committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be 

printed 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2854 RH

A BILL 

To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to prohibit the use of neonicotinoids 

in a National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2854 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Our Refuges 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF NEONICOTINOIDS IN 

7 A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. 

8 The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

9 Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) is amended— 

10 (1) by redesignating section 5 as section 6; and 

11 (2) by inserting after section 4 the following: 

12 ‘‘SEC. 5 NEONICOTINOID. 

13 ‘‘No person may use a neonicotinoid in the System.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 375 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2854 

[Report No. 116–468] 

A BILL 

To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Adfor other purposes. neonicotinoids in a National Wildlife Refuge, and ministration Act of 1966 to prohibit the use of 

AUGUST 7, 2020 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of PocketSpec Technologies Inc. (the
Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending January 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I. Cynthia Kettl, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fully presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          or the Company.

DECEMBER 27, 2004

                                                     By: /s/  Cynthia Kettl
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2418

HELEN C. VELLO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM J. HENDERSON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-561-WMN)

Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: March 8, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Helen C. Vello, Appellant Pro Se. Nadira Clarke, Special Assistant

United States Attorney, Kristine L. Sendek Smith, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Helen C. Vello appeals the district court’s order denying

her civil action alleging Postmaster General William J. Henderson

failed to comply with an order issued by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Vello v. Henderson, No. CA-01-561-WMN (D. Md.

Oct. 8, 2003). 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
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 USC. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Claires Stores, Inc. (the Company) for
the year ended January 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Bonnie Schaefer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 USC. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ E. Bonnie SchaeferE. Bonnie SchaeferCo-Chief Executive OfficerApril 12, 2005
No. 10-10632.

#### Catherine A. McLachlan, Petitioner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

565 U.S. 842, 132 S. Ct. 154,

181 L. Ed. 2d 70,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6202.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 493.
No. 11-5466.

#### Kevin O’Connell, Petitioner v. Kelly Harrington, Warden.

565 U.S. 909, 132 S. Ct. 316,

181 L. Ed. 2d 194,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5850.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 420 Fed. Appx. 746.
#### *Doctors Co., Petitioner, v. Bennett Bigelow & Leedom, PS, et al., Respondents,*

No. 91871-6.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 72163-1-I, May 26, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1034. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 29 06

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

ff - App el le e

v.
Ju an Fran ci sc o Al am o- San te ll an es , als o k no wn as Paco , als o k no wn as Jo se

Ru sb en Alam o- San te ll an es
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe 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 Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Marc h 7 , 20 14 Fi le d: Marc h 1 3, 2 01 4 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ju an Alam o- San te ll an es di rect ly ap pe al s th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t
co ur t aft er he pl ead ed gu il ty to a drug of fen se
. His co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw, 1

The Hon or ab le Pat ric k J. Sch il tz , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 9 6 7 ) , arg ui ng th at

Alam o- San te ll an es ’s st at ut ory -m in im um pr is on te rm is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

.
Afte r care fu l rev ie w, w e c o nc lu de th at Alam o- San te ll an es ’s ch al le ng e to hi s
se nt en ce fai ls be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed au th or it y to im po se a se nt en ce be lo w th e st at ut ory m in im

um
. See Uni te d St at es v. W at ts , 55 3 F.3 d 60 3, 60 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m ) (d is tri ct co u r t s la ck au th or it y to red uc e se nt en ces be lo w
co ng res si on al ly-m an da te d st at ut or y m in im um s) ; Uni te d St at es v. Greg g, 45 1 F.3 d 93 0, 93 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (Un it ed St at e s v
. B o o ke r, 54 3 U.S. 22 0 (2 00 5) , do es no t rel at e to st at ut or il y im

po se d se nt en ces ). Hav in g rev ie wed th e reco rd in de pe nd en tl y in acco rd an ce wit h Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 , 80 (1 98 8) , we fin d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es
. The refo re, we gr an t co un s el ’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, su bjec t to co un se l in fo rm in g Alam o- San te ll an es ab ou t pr oc edur es fo r se ek in g reh eari ng or fil in g a pe ti ti on forcert io rari . The jud gm en t i s af firm ed

.

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

-2

-