alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6427

TAMARA STANFIELD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICHARD GRAHAM, Warden; BRADLEY BUTLER, Security Chief; DAYENA 

CORCORAN, Commissioner of Correction; STEVEN BEEMAN, Sergeant; 

JEFFREY SHIMKO, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (8:16-cv-04149-GLR)

Submitted: July 26, 2018 Decided: July 31, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tamara Stanfield, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tamara Stanfield appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to 

Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Stanfield v. Graham, No. 8:16-cv-04149-GLR (D. Md. filed Mar. 27, 2018 & entered 

Mar. 28, 2018). 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
Date of Posting...................

Date for Receipt of Quotes....

Cutoff Time for Receipt.........

Item #

(K0000) Location Origin

# of 

Units Bulk Wt (lbs) WO3 (%)

NOTE: Minimum bid is one entire line item.

* All quotes must be submitted through the DLA-Strategic Materials Sales Portal

and quoters must be pre-approved in the site to participate

DLA - Strategic Materials Sales Portal

Tungsten Ores and Concentrates Offering

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Basic Ordering Agreement... DLA-Stockpile Materials-001-(BOA) - Tungsten Ores & Concentrates

February 14, 2022

February 15, 2022

12:00pm

WO3 

(lbsWO3) W (lbsW ) WO3 (STU) Lot # Type

Total Total Total Total Total

1169 358,541 254,316 201,673 12,716

557 Scotia, NY P-2999-F Synthetic Scheelite Argentina 217 62813 71.91 45168.828 35818.881 2258.404

791 Scotia, NY P-3105-F Synthetic Scheelite Argentina 215 63320 69.43 43963.076 34862.719 2198.153

794 Scotia, NY P-3106-C Synthetic Scheelite Unknown 287 86245 69.1 59595.295 47259.069 2979.719

829 Scotia, NY P-3162-C Synthetic Scheelite Unknown 221 70095 71.97 50447.372 40004.766 2522.401

563 Scotia, NY P-3198-C Synthetic Scheelite Unknown 229 76068 72.49 55141.693 43727.363 2757.086
Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- WAYLON JACE IRON, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-14-694

DECISION

On January 20, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of fifteen (15) years with thirteen (13) years suspended, for the offense of Count I: Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a Felony, in violation of §45-5-503, MCA. The Defendant was granted credit for time spent in pre-trial incarceration from August 28, 2014 to January 20, 2016. The Court recommended that Defendant be screened for treatment with the MASC Treatment Center and upon acceptance, follow all requirements and provisions. If not accepted, Defendant would be placed at a Department of Corrections facility at the discretion of the department. The Defendant was designated a Level 2 Sexual Offender.

On May 5, 2016, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division *46that the application for review of sentence shall be waived.

Done in open Court this 5th day of May, 2016.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2016.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 41561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20670]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-682-000]


Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

July 29, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 22, 1998, Viking Gas Transmission Company 
(Viking), 825 Rice Street, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55117, filed in Docket 
No. CP98-682-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, and 157.212, 
of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 
157.205, 157.212) for authorization to add a new delivery point to 
accommodate natural gas deliveries to Wisconsin Gas (Wisconsin) in Polk 
County, Wisconsin under Viking's blanket certificate issued in Docket 
No. CP88-679-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as 
more fully set forth in the request that is on file with the Commission 
and open to public inspection.
    Viking states that Wisconsin has requested metering capacities to 
accommodate up to 3,600 Dth of gas per day at the Black Brook delivery 
point. Viking states that the new delivery point will not exceed 
contract quantities, and the changes proposed are not prohibited by 
Viking's tariff. They also state that they have sufficient capacity in 
its system to accomplish delivery of gas to the proposed delivery point 
without detriment or disadvantage to Viking's other customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-20670 Filed 8-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-6946.

#### Brian L. Brown, Petitioner v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al.

565 U.S. 1097, 132 S. Ct. 853,

181 L. Ed. 2d 556,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8838.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
No. 11-88.

#### Asid Mohamad, Individually and for the Estate of Azzam Rahim, Deceased, et al., Petitioners v. Palestinian Authority, et al.

565 U.S. 1188, 132 S. Ct. 1307,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 1072.

181 L. Ed. 2d 1036,

February 17, 2012.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1466

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

___________ Submitted: October 21, 2010 Filed: November 17, 2010

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Alberto Becerra challenges the within-Guidelinesrange sentence the district court 1 imposed following his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. Counsel has submitted a br ief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he argues that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Becerra and should have sentenced him to a below-Guidelines-range prison term.-2- We hold that the district court, in sentencing Becerra, did not commit any procedural error, because the court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, properly considered only relevant section 3553(a) factors, and explained its reasons for the within-Guidelines-range sentence, and that the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. SeeUnited States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (e n banc) (in reviewing senten ce for reasonableness, this court first ensures district court committe d no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating Guidelines range, tr eating Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider § 3553(a) factors, sentencing base d on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain chosen sentence, thenconsiders substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard ; appellate presumption of reasonableness may be applied to within-Gui delines-range sentence); see also United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (defini ng ways in which abuse of discretion may occur). After reviewing the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
No. 10-10740.

#### Daniel Jon Peterka, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

565 U.S. 1101, 132 S. Ct. 868,

181 L. Ed. 2d 565,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8962.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 847, 132 S. Ct. 166, 181 L. Ed. 2d 79, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 6272.
No. 11-368.

#### Torina A. Collis, Petitioner v. Bank of America, N.A.

565 U.S. 1036, 132 S. Ct. 589,

181 L. Ed. 2d 424,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8163.

November 14, 2011.

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

Same case below, 426 Fed. Appx. 195.
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $9.84 CWT 0.965 $9.4956

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.1104 LB 3.5 $7.3864

Class I Price $16.8820

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $7.79 CWT 0.965 $7.5174

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.0749 LB 3.5 $7.2622

Class I Price $14.7795

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $2.1025

(4) Price change per gallon $0.1808

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0904

Price change per quart $0.0452

Price change per pint $0.0226

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0163

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0136

Price change per half pint $0.0113

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.18

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.09

Price adjustment per quart $0.05

Price adjustment per pint $0.02

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.02

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.01

Price adjustment per half pint $0.01

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: Dec. 4, 2016
NO. 07-07-0124-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 3, 2007

		______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF M.E.R. AND Z.C.R., CHILDREN

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. 8901A24508; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION 

	Paul McDaniel, father of M.E.R. and Z.C.R., filed notice of appeal from an order confirming a child support arrearage.  The trial court clerk's record was filed in this Court on June 7, 2007.  A reporter’s record was never filed.  By letter of June 21, 2007, this Court directed McDaniel to certify by July 2, 2007, that he had requested and made satisfactory payment arrangements for the reporter’s record.   The letter contained notice that failure to comply might result in the Court setting the deadline for his brief.  Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c).  McDaniel made no response.  By letter of July 19, 2007, this Court notified McDaniel that his appellate brief was due August 23, 2007.  On July 23, 2007, this Court received a letter from McDaniel, briefly arguing why he should be excused from paying the child support arrearage confirmed by the trial court.  By letter of July 30, 2007, this Court notified McDaniel that his letter, if intended as an appellate brief, did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure, and reminded him that his brief was due August 23. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1.  A copy of Rule 38.1 was included in this correspondence.  McDaniel filed no additional documents.  By letter of September 10, 2007, this Court notified him that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless his brief was filed, along with a motion for extension of time, by September 20, 2007.  Again, McDaniel made no response.

	An appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution if an appellant fails to timely file a brief unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the failure.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(a)(1).  On its own motion, with ten days notice to the parties, an appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c).  Here the record reveals appellant McDaniel has not timely filed a brief and has given us no reason for his failure to do so, despite notice requiring its filing by a specified date.  We further find the Court has given the parties the required ten days notice.  

	Accordingly, we now dismiss McDaniel’s appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a directive of the Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b),(c).

						James T. Campbell 

						          Justice
No. 11-55.

#### Bruce J. Liban, Petitioner v. Middlebrook at Monmouth.

565 U.S. 1075, 132 S. Ct. 805,

181 L. Ed. 2d 516,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8412.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 880, 132 S. Ct. 247, 181 L. Ed. 2d 141, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5494.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DUANE CHARLES ACKERMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-16897 

D.C. Nos. 3:18-cv-00401-VC 

3:15-cr-00540-VC-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Duane Charles Ackerman appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. 

Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-16897

Ackerman contends that his initial, retained counsel provided ineffective 

assistance leading up to Ackerman’s change of plea hearing. The district court did 

not err by denying Ackerman’s claim. Contrary to Ackerman’s contentions, 

Ackerman did not enter into his plea agreement while he was represented by his 

retained counsel. Instead, Ackerman was appointed and consulted with new 

counsel before entering the plea agreement. Accordingly, Ackerman cannot 

demonstrate he suffered any prejudice from his retained counsel’s alleged deficient 

performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

Ackerman next contends that his appointed counsel also rendered ineffective 

assistance by failing to advise him about a possible defense strategy to the 18 

U.S.C. § 2251 counts. Because the defense strategy that Ackerman asserts would 

not have succeeded at trial, see United States v. Banks, 556 F.3d 967, 979-80 (9th 

Cir. 2009), Ackerman cannot demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice, see Hill 

v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). 

We decline to consider Ackerman’s remaining ineffective assistance of 

counsel claims that were not raised before the district court or in his opening brief. 

See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]n appellate court 

will not consider issues not properly raised before the district court. Furthermore, 

on appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed 

waived.”). 

We treat Ackerman’s additional claims as a motion to expand the certificate 
3 18-16897

of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); 

Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4756 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4756

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the agri-biodiesel 
            credit to oils produced from plants and animals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2006

 Mr. Butterfield (for himself, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Bishop 
  of Georgia, and Mr. Berry) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the agri-biodiesel 
            credit to oils produced from plants and animals.

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

SECTION 1. AGRI-BIODIESEL CREDIT LIMITED TO OILS PRODUCED FROM PLANTS 
              AND ANIMALS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 40A(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining agri-biodiesel) is amended to read as 
follows:
            ``(2) Agri-biodiesel.--The term `agri-biodiesel' means 
        biodiesel derived solely from virgin oils--
                    ``(A) from esters derived from corn, soybeans, 
                sunflower seeds, cottonseeds, canola, crambe, 
                rapeseeds, safflowers, flaxseeds, rice bran, and 
                mustard seeds, and
                    ``(B) from animal fats.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to biodiesel sold after the date of the enactment of this Act in 
taxable years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40707-40708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20326]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP89-161-036]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Refund Report

July 23, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 17, 1998, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 
tendered for filing, a report of refunds paid to customers.
    The refunds relate to ANR's Interim Sales Program for the period 
November 1, 1992 through October 31, 1993. The Commission issued an 
order on March 12, 1998 in the referenced proceeding which required ANR 
to file its Third Reconciliation Report on the Interim Sales Program. 
Such report, which detailed additional refunds to customers of revenues 
collected in excess of gas costs, was subsequently accepted by the 
Commission in a letter order dated June 12, 1998. Accordingly, on June 
17, 1998, ANR states that it refunded to eligible customers $7,557,718, 
consisting of principal amounts totaling $5,251,258 and interest of 
$2,306,460.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before July 29, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public

[[Page 40708]]

inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-20326 Filed 7-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<page>

EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley Charter
Graham L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter Davis,
President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general partner
of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(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 Partnership.









By:   /s/ Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		August 13, 2008
No. 10-1491.

#### Esther Kiobel, Individually and on Behalf of Her Late Husband, Dr. Barinem Kiobel, et al., Petitioners v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., et al.

565 U.S. 1188, 132 S. Ct. 1307,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1035,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 1074.

February 17, 2012.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.