alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 21

- 2435

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

David M. Foston, also known as Max, also known as Prez

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

Submitted: April 15, 2022 Filed: May 13, 2022 [ Unpublished ]

____________ Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

David M. Foston appeals his sentence for conspiring to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 , arguing that the district court 1 erred in classifying him
as a career offender. At sentencing, the district court stated that it “ would still

1 The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.-2- impose [the same] sentence” even if Foston did not qualify as a career offender.
Thus , even assuming arguendo that the district court erred in classifying Foston as a career offender, th e error was harmless and does not provide a basis to remand for resentencing. See United States v. Davis , 583 F.3d 1081, 1095 (8th Cir. 2009) (“ Because the district court explici tly stated it would have imposed a sentence of 293 months imprisonment regardless of whether [the defendant] was a career offender, any error on the part of the district court is harmless, and we affirm. ”)

. Accordingly, we affirm Foston’s sentence.

______________________________
No. 11-249.

#### Keith Prost, Petitioner v. Carl Anderson, Warden; David George Brace, Petitioner v. United States, et al.; and Eugene H. Mathison, Petitioner v. R. Wiley, Warden.

565 U.S. 1111, 132 S. Ct. 1001,

181 L. Ed. 2d 733,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 332.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 636 F.3d 578 (first judgment); 634 F.3d 1167 (second judgment); and 318 Fed. Appx. 650 (third judgment).
# C_2018356EN.01020301.xml

| 4.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 356/203 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/203

---

P8_TA(2017)0467

Accession of Georgia and South Africa to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 30 November 2017 on the proposal for a Council decision authorising Luxembourg and Romania to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Georgia and South Africa to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (COM(2017)0357 — C8-0233/2017 — 2017/0148(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2018/C 356/48)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2017)0357), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2017)0357),

| — | having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

| — | having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0233/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0233/2017),

| — | having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice (1) on the exclusive external competence of the European Union for a declaration of acceptance of an accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice (1) on the exclusive external competence of the European Union for a declaration of acceptance of an accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

| — | having regard to Rules 78c and 108(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 78c and 108(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0361/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0361/2017),

| 1. | Approves the authorisation for Luxembourg and Romania to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Georgia and South Africa to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, as well as to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---

(1)  Opinion of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2014, 1/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2303.

---
Powers of Attorney, John T. Fleurant


 Exhibit (10)(f) 

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORPORATION 
 POWERS OF ATTORNEY FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE 
 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of
the undersigned constitutes and appoints each of Matthew M. Grove, Thomas F. English, Paul W. Horrocks, Linda M. Reimer and George E. Silos, as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, each with full power of substitution and resubstitution
for him in his name, place and stead, to sign any and all registration statements or other filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission or any state regulatory agency or authority applicable to New York Life Insurance and Annuity
Corporation Variable Annuity Separate Account – II (File Number 033-53344) and any amendments or supplements thereto, and withdrawals thereof, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission or any state regulatory agency or authority granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done, as fully to all
intents and purposes as he might or could do in person in his capacity as a Director or officer of New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. 
 These Powers of Attorney may be signed in one or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. 
  

			
		
	  
 Christopher T. Ashe
	  	  

Steven D. Lash

		
	  
 Christopher O.
Blunt
	  	  
 Theodore A. Mathas

		
	  
 Frank M. Boccio
	  	  
 Mark W. Pfaff

		
	  
 Stephen P. Fisher
	  	  
 Arthur H. Seter

		
	 /s/ John T. Fleurant
 John T. Fleurant
	  	  

Michael E. Sproule

		
	  
 Robert M. Gardner
	  	  
 Joel M. Steinberg

		
	  
 Solomon Goldfinger
	  	  
 Susan A. Thrope


 Dated: April 3, 2012
No. 11-6778.

#### Ted Klaudt, Petitioner v. Robert Dooley, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 1068, 132 S. Ct. 780,

181 L. Ed. 2d 500,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8622.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Order entered September 19, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01126
- CV
BRIGETTA D’ OLIVIO, Appellant

V. ERHARD HERMUS, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judi cial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 16
- 14449



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s September 16, 2019 motion requesting that this Court not decide this case before she files her reply brief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.3. We GR ANT the motion. Appellant’s reply brief is due September 30, 2019
. See id

. 4.1(a); 38.6(c).

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
No. 11-5736.

#### Lewis O. Waters, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 920, 132 S. Ct. 345,

181 L. Ed. 2d 216,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7087.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 12 A.3d 1173.
No. 11-6786.

#### Min Wu, Petitioner v. Allan Yunling Hu.

565 U.S. 1096, 132 S. Ct. 849,

181 L. Ed. 2d 554,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8857.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6612

BRYANT K. MCARTHUR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-363-S) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Bryant K. McArthur, Appellant Pro Se. David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. McArthur v. Corcoran , No. CA-98-363-S (D. Md. Mar. 26, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court. County of Lake.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- ROBERT JAMES MATHEWSON, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-14-087

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

DATED this 10th day of June, 2016.

DECISION

On October 14, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to the Montana State Prison for a term of ten (10) years, with a parole restriction of ten (10) years for one count of Criminal Endangerment, a felony, in violation of §45-5-207, MCA. At the Oct. 14, 2015 sentencing, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 years in MSP in Cause No. DC-15-053, which was ordered to run consecutive to this sentence. At Defendant’s Sentence Review hearing held on February 4, 2016, the sentence for Cause DC-15-053 was decreased to three (3) years to MSP. Upon release from prison, the Defendant was ordered to serve 5 days in the county jail for contempt. The Defendant was given credit for 417 days of time served.

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 (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant appeared by video conferencing from the Crossroads Correctional Center and was represented by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was represented by Lake County Attorney Steven Eschenbacher.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the 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 Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

The Division notes that the argument raised by the Defendant regarding the lack of explanation for the reasons for the parole restriction in the Judgment is an issue the Defendant should have raised on appeal.

*50Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member.
No. 09-708.

#### St. Luke’s of the Mountains Anglican Church in La Crescenta, et al., Petitioners v. Episcopal Church, et al.

559 U.S. 971, 130 S. Ct. 1690,

176 L. Ed. 2d 181,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2015.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, denied.

Same case below, 175 Cal. App. 4th 663, 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 346.
No. 11-6795.

#### Alfredo Ramos, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 1117, 132 S. Ct. 1006,

181 L. Ed. 2d 745,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 361.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, denied.
Letter extending Management Agreement with Willowbridge Associates Inc.



 Exhibit 10.4(a) 
 June 1, 2011 
 Willowbridge Associates Inc. 

101 Morgan Lane — Suite 180 

Plainsboro, N.J. 08536 
 Attention: Mr Steve R.
Crane 
 Re: Management Agreement Renewals 
 Dear Mr. Crane: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2012 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

  

	 	•	 	 Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. II 


  

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Institutional Futures Portfolio LP 


  

	 	•	 	 CMF Willowbridge Argo Master Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Orion Futures Fund (Cayman) Ltd. 


  

	 	•	 	 CTA Capital LLC 


 Please
acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1302.

 Very truly yours, 
  

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Jennifer Magro
		 	Jennifer Magro
		 	Chief Financial Officer & Director

  

			
	WILLOWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Steven R. Crane
		 	Print Name: Steven R. Crane

 JM/sr
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 483 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 483

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate a United States courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, as the 
  ``Reynaldo G. Garza and Filemon B. Vela United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at the corner of Seventh 
Street and East Jackson Street in Brownsville, Texas, shall be 
designated and known as the ``Reynaldo G. Garza and Filemon B. Vela 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Reynaldo G. 
Garza and Filemon B. Vela United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 13, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 483

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate a United States courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, as the 
  ``Reynaldo G. Garza and Filemon B. Vela United States Courthouse''.
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10645 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
THEODORE E. OKECHUKU , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 481

- 1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Theodore E. Okechuku is charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute and dispense hydrocodone outside the scope of professional practice and not with a legitimate medical purpose in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Because the magistrate judge found ther e was probable cause to believe that Okechuku continued to illegally dispense hydrocodone while on pretrial release, his pretrial release was revoked and he was ordered detained

. See 18

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED Septe mber 3, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10645 Document: 00513180491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2015No. 15

- 10645

2 U.S.C. § 3148(b). The district court denied Okechuku’s motion to rev oke the magistrate judge ’s detention order. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Okechuku’s second motion for reconsideration was denied after a hearing by the magistrate judge , and his third motion for reconsideration was denied by the district court because Okechu ku noted no new evidence or change in circumstances that had not previously been considered by the court

. Okechuku appeals the denial of his t hird motion for reconsideration. He argues that because he can no longer practice medicine or write prescriptions, he no longer pose s a danger to the community . He disagrees with the magistrate judge ’ s finding that, given the fact that he previously violated the release conditions set by the court , he is unlikely to abide by any condit ion or combination of conditions for release. S ee § 3148(b). He also argues that the district court failed to reevaluate the factors for release listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) before denying his motion. After reviewing the record, we have determined th at the district court’s denial of Okechuku’s third motion for reconsideration is supported by the proceedings below and the factual basis of the decis ion is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Aron , 904 F.2d 221, 223 , 224

- 25 (5 th Cir. 1990)

. More over, given the finding that Okechuku was unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions for release, s ee § 3148(b) (2)(B) , it was not necessary for the district court to reevaluate the § 3142(g) factors for release before denying Okechuku’s motion

. The district court’s denial of Okechuku’s third motion for reconsideration is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-10645 Document: 00513180491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2015
No. 11-6645.

#### Maxwell R. Joelson, Petitioner v. Department of Justice, et al.

565 U.S. 1176, 132 S. Ct. 1161,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1016,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 929.

January 23, 2012.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
No. 11-7042.

#### Melvin R. Kerchee, Jr., Petitioner v. Justin Jones, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

565 U.S. 1121, 132 S. Ct. 1020,

181 L. Ed. 2d 753,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 403,

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 428 Fed. Appx. 851.
No. 09-8203.

#### Joshua Maxwell, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

559 U.S. 978, 130 S. Ct. 1698,

176 L. Ed. 2d 191,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2037.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 350 Fed. Appx. 854.
No. 09-8627.

#### Santos Zamora-Laines, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 961, 130 S. Ct. 1564,

176 L. Ed. 2d 149,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1334.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 349 Fed. Appx. 249.
Deny and Opinion Filed May 30, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00619-CV 

IN RE JAMES MCCOY, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F02-02115-V 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial 

court to rule on his motion to compel the Dallas County District Attorney’s office to respond to 

questions that he wished answered in conjunction with his petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

federal court. This Court has not been given general supervisory control over district and county 

courts. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Kirby, 150 S.W.2d 123, 126 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1941, no 

writ); see also Guillory v. Davis, 527 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1975, no 

writ). In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show two things: (1) 

that he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. 

In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Consideration of a motion properly 

filed and before the court is a ministerial act. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist.,

34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (citing State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 

128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (opinion on reh'g)). Here, however, even if the motion is on file in 
 –2– 

the convicting court, it is not “properly filed” in the trial court. The motion relator has filed in 

the trial court is a motion to compel discovery against the District Attorney in relator’s federal 

case. The case in which relator has filed his motion is the state criminal case in which he was 

convicted. The state court that convicted relator does not have the authority to compel discovery 

in his federal case and, thus, does not have a ministerial duty to rule on relator’s motion seeking 

such discovery. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

140619F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
No. 11-7145.

#### Charles Thomas O’Neil, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1085, 132 S. Ct. 830,

181 L. Ed. 2d 538,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8749.

December 5, 2011.

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

Same case below, 436 Fed. Appx. 960.
No. 09-7173.

#### Kathalina Monacelli, Petitioner v. Target Stores, et al.

559 U.S. 964, 130 S. Ct. 1573,

176 L. Ed. 2d 156,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1042.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1120, 130 S. Ct. 1065, 175 L. Ed. 2d 898, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 276.