alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-15171

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:05-cr-80121-JIC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LINCOLN MOODY, 

a.k.a. Jose,

a.k.a. Antonio Espinosa, 

a.k.a. Lincoln Moody, 

a.k.a. Rateek Allah, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 15, 2019)

Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Lincoln Moody, a federal prisoner who uses the religious name Rateek Love 

Allah, appeals pro se the denial of his postconviction motion to correct his

sentence. Allah alleged that he was erroneously sentenced in 2006 as a career 

offender because his presentence investigation report misstated that he had a prior 

conviction for robbery with a firearm when he actually had been convicted of 

simple robbery. Allah requested that the district court correct his presentence 

report and that the district court correct his sentence based on Rosales-Mireles v. 

United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018). The district court ruled that it lacked 

authority to grant Allah relief. We affirm.

The district court did not err. The district court could not correct a fact stated 

in Allah’s presentence investigation report when he failed to object to it. See 

United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2009) (“It is the law of this 

circuit that a failure to object to allegations of fact in a PSI admits those facts for 

sentencing purposes and precludes the argument that there was error in them.”).

The district court also lacked jurisdiction to alter Allah’s sentence. Allah filed his 

motion long after the 14-day deadline in which to correct a sentence expired. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). No basis existed to modify Allah’s sentence in the absence 

of either a motion from the Bureau of Prisons to reduce his sentence or an 

Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered his sentencing range. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c). Allah also was not entitled to postconviction relief based on

Molina-Martinez, which addressed whether a defendant whose sentence is based 

on a plainly incorrect sentencing range was entitled to relief on direct appeal under 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), 138 S. Ct. at 1906–11. And Allah could 

not move the district court to vacate his sentence because his motion would be 

barred as successive. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2255. In any event, we have held that 

errors in the calculation of an advisory guideline range for sentencing a career 

offender are not cognizable in postconviction review. See Spencer v. United States, 

773 F.3d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc).

We AFFIRM the denial of Allah’s motion.

Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 3 of 3
Maddox Ungar Silberstein,
PLLC CPAs and Business
Advisors


Phone
(248) 203-0080


Fax (248)
281-0940


30600
Telegraph Road, Suite 2175


Bingham
Farms, MI 48025-4586


www.maddoxungar.com





November
17, 2009





To the
Board of Directors of


Sierra
Concepts, Inc.


Reno,
Nevada





To Whom
It May Concern:








Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





Maddox
Ungar Silberstein, PLLC, hereby consents to the use in the Form 10-K, Annual
Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, of our
report dated November 17, 2009, relating to the financial statements of Sierra
Concepts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, as of and for the periods ending September
30, 2009 and 2008, and for the period from inception to September 30,
2009.





Sincerely,





/s/ Maddox Ungar
Silberstein, PLLC





Maddox
Ungar Silberstein, PLLC
Justin Ashley CHAMPION, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D17-4329

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 9, 2017 Rehearing Denied January 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Terrill Lamar JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-2344

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 13, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Agenda for Siloxanes Meeting 

March 28, 2013 from 1p-4p EST 

In Person Location: (Interested parties and observers will need to be signed-in. Please arrive 

promptly.) 

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

EPA East Room 4225 

1201 Constitution Avenue 

Washington, D.C. 20460

Call in Number: 1-866-299-3188, conference code: 202-564-4760#

1. Meeting Introduction- Ward Penberthy, EPA 

2. Presentation on Revised Environmental Monitoring Proposal, Silicones 

Environmental, Health and Safety Council of North America 

3. Discussion on EPA’s Outline for a Risk Assessment Plan- Cathy 

Fehrenbacher, EPA 

4. Discussion on Conducting a Peer Consultation- Stan Barone, EPA 

5. Next Steps- Ward Penberthy, EPA
[No. 51926-3-I.

Division One.

May 24, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Travis W. Weaver, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 02-1-01252-6, Michael F. Moynihan, J., entered February 10, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J., concurred in by Coleman and Schindler, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10748 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CHARLES EARL DAVIS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17

- CR

- 10

- 1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Charles Earl Davis appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that the district cour t erred by not ordering his sentence to run concurrently with any sentence imposed for two pending state charges arising from a prior arrest, which he asserts are relevant conduct to his instant offense.

* 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 t he limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED April 30, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10748 Document: 00514936761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2019No. 18

- 10748

2 Davis’s unpreserved arguments challenging the conse cutiveness of his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 raise fact questions pertaining to whether the conduct underlying his previous arrest was sufficiently connected or related to the underlying offense to qualify as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. “Questions of fact capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error.” United States v. Lopez , 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) ; see also United States v.
Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 118

- 1 9 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, Davis’s argument that United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 (1993), and United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) , abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997) , which a ddressed legal error, dictate that we not follow Lopez is unpersuasive. He effectively asks us to overturn this court’s precedent, which we may not do. See United States v. Walker , 302 F.3d 322, 324

- 25 (5th Cir. 2002). To the extent Davis relies on deci sions that conflict with Lopez , we follow Lopez because it is the earlier line of precedent. See United States v.
Wheeler , 322 F.3d 823, 828 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, t he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 18-10748 Document: 00514936761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2019
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY,

Appellant,

v.

RENAISSANCE CHARTER SCHOOL, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2539

[September 27, 2018]

Appeal and cross-appeal from the State of Florida, Division of 

Administrative Hearings; L.T. DOAH Case Nos. 16-5126 and 16-5157RX.

Sean Fahey, JulieAnn Rico and A. Denise Sagerholm of The School 

Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, Office of General Counsel, West 

Palm Beach, for appellant.

Stephanie Alexander and Edward J. Pozzuoli of Tripp Scott, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, CONNER, JJ., and MIRMAN, LAWRENCE, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 85-6583.

#### Kim et al. *v.*Stroh, Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control, et al.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 April 2005

in Case T-141/03, Sniace SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(State Aid - Equity loan - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 171/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case T-141/03: Sniace SA, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Baró Fuentes, lawyer, supported by Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: N. Díaz Abad, with an address for service in Luxembourg) against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Santaolalla Gadea and J. Buendía Sierra, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/284/EC of 11 December 2002 on the State aid implemented by Spain for Sniace SA (OJ 2003 L 108, p. 35) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger, F. Dehousse, E. Cremona and O. Czúcz, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.

----
Edward HAMMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-3728

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Carroll Shelby International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Luft, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|Date: November 14, 2003 |  | /s/JOHN LUFTJohn Luft, President
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 15.4



| |                                  
| | ---------------------------------
| |                                  
| | Gaffney, Cline & Associates, Inc.
| |                                  
| | 5555 San Felipe Street           
| | Suite 550                        
| | Houston, TX 77056, USA           
| | Telephone:  +1 713 850 9955      
| |                                  
| | www.gaffney-cline.com            



|DKM/gjh/AH-13-2048.00/gcah.138.14 | April 21, 2014
|--------------------------------- | --------------



Board of Directors

Ecopetrol, S. A.

Edificio Principal

Cr 13 No.36-24

Bogotá, Colombia



CONSENT OF GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES



Dear Sirs,



As independent reserve
engineers for Ecopetrol S.A.(Ecopetrol), Gaffney, Cline & Associates (GCA) hereby confirms that it has granted and not withdrawn
its consent to the references to GCA and to the inclusion of information contained in our report entitled “Reserve Audit
for Sixty Six Fields in Colombia as of December 31, 2013”, dated March 03, 2014, prepared for Ecopetrol, and to the annexation
of our report as an exhibit in Ecopetrol’s annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013, as well as to
the incorporation by reference of this consent and our report into Ecopetrol S.A.’s registration statement on Form F-3 filed
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2013 (the Registration Statement). GCA further consents to
the reference to “GCA” as set forth in the Registration Statement under the heading “Experts”.



Yours faithfully,



GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.







David K. Morgan

Technical Director
[No. 30309-4-II.

Division Two.

June 8, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Crystal Marie Horne, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 02-1-01544-9, Stephen M. Warning and James E. Warme, JJ., entered April 25, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Houghton and Bridgewater, JJ.
The Honorable Richard H. Battey, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the District of South Dakota.

___________

No. 96-1591

___________

Vern C. Top Bear, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * District of South Dakota.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: October 7, 1996

 Filed: October 16, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.ENDFIELD

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vern C. Top Bear appeals from the district court's denial of his 28 1

U.S.C. § 2255 motion, on the ground that Top Bear was not "in custody."

After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude

that denial of relief was proper. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 20, 2019

Order 

Clerk

September 20, 2019

160239(86)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 160239

v COA: 339441

Saginaw CC: 16-042711-FC

JUSTIN LLOYD HUGHES, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to file a pro per 

supplement to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The supplement submitted 

on September 17, 2019, is accepted for filing.
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

11 August 2005

(2005/C 197/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 549 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge is a vital part of the ecology of Georgia and 

should be inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage Site list. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2023 

Mr. CARTER of Georgia (for himself and Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is a vital part 

of the ecology of Georgia and should be inscribed on 

the UNESCO World Heritage Site list. 

Whereas the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is a wetland that protects over 400,000 acres in south Georgia 

on the border with Florida; 

Whereas the Okefenokee has been inhabited since 2500 B.C.; 

Whereas, in 1936, it was designated the Okefenokee by the 

Department of the Interior; 

Whereas the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge sees over 

400,000 visitors a year, playing a vital role in the economy of south Georgia; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 549 IH 

Whereas, according to a United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service report authored in 2019, the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge created $64,700,000 in revenue for 

the local economies; 

Whereas there are hundreds of different animal species that 

inhabit the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, including endangered species such as the indigo snake and the 

red-cockaded woodpecker; 

Whereas the Okefenokee has been on the U.S. World Heritage Tentative List since 2007 but has yet to be inscribed 

permanently; and 

Whereas the Okefenokee holds significant historical, cultural, 

and ecological benefit to the States of Florida and Georgia: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the nomination of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Ref3 uge as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[No. 30746-4-II.

Division Two.

April 27, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gordon Sidney Kirkpatrick, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 03-1-01410-1, Frederick W. Fleming, J., entered August 12, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, C.J., and Houghton, J.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SALVATORE M. DECANIO, JR., a/k/a SALVATORE F. DECANIO

, Appellant,

v.

CAROL A. DECANIO

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 348

[ April 26, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; David E. French , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2006DR014854XXXXSB

.

Ronald L. Bornstein of Ronald L. Bornstein, P.A., Greenac re s, for

appellant.

Mark A. Skipper of Law Office of Mark A. Skipper, P.A., Orlando, for

appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### James Walter Russel *v.*Willie Lavender

(No. 7326)

Submitted September 13, 1932.

Decided September 20, 1932.

*532
      *Lon G. Marks,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. Howard Hundley,*for defendant in error.

Lite, Judge:

Plaintiff, James Walter Russel, complains of an order of the common pleas court of Kanawha county, dismissing his action in ejectment against defendant, Willie Lavender, on a plea in abatement.

The declaration, in the usual form, avers that the plaintiff is possessed of an estate in fee simple absolute, except one-half the coal, oil, gas, mineral and mineral substances of 25 acres of land in Kanawha county, and that defendant, on the . day of., 1931, “entered into the same and unlawfully withholds from the plaintiff the possession thereof.” Defendant filed a plea in abatement, averring that one undivided sixth of the premises was vested in others as co-tenants of plaintiff. To the plea plaintiff demurred, and replied that he had been in quiet, peaceable possession of the land in controversy for more than ten years prior to the entry of defendant and that defendant was a mere trespasser and intruder thereon. After overruling a demurrer to the plea and replication, the trial court, upon motion of defendant, dismissed the action.

Chapter 55, article 4, section 10, provides that the defendant in ejectment may demur and plead to the declaration, but that he shall plead “the general issue only, which shall be that the defendant is not guilty of unlawfully withholding the premises claimed by the plaintiff in the declaration. ’ ’ Any plea other than the general issue is therefore unauthorized by the statute. If a special plea were permissible, the one in this case sets up an immaterial issue. One joint tenant or tenant in common may recover his share in the joint property, by ejectment, without joining *his*co-tenants. Burks *533Pleading *&*Practice, page 157; *Marshall*v. *Palmer,*91 Va. 344, 21 S. E. 672. Assuming further that a special plea is authorized in ejectment and that it is necessary for. all co-tenants to join as plaintiffs in an action of ejectment, the replication of plaintiff was a sufficient reply to the special plea. “When a party in peaceable possession of land is entered upon and ousted by one not having title to, or authority to enter upon, the land, the party so ousted may recover the premises in ejectment upon his possession merely; and his right to do so can not be defeated by the "defendant showing that there is or may be an outstanding title in a third person, but only by showing that the defendant himself either has title or authority from the person having the title to enter under the title. *Tapscott*v. *Cobbs,*11 Gratt. 182; *Middleton*v. *Johns,*4 Gratt. 129; *Moody*v. *McKein,*5 Munf. 374.” *Witten*v. *St. Clair,*27 W. Va. 762, 771.

The judgment complained of is reversed and the case remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3773 — Lehman Brothers/Europe Realty/IHG Portfolio)

(2005/C 131/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 May 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification ofCEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

*Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.*

 

 
|          | * *            | * * | *By:*    | */s/ Keith C. Robbins*              |
|----------|---------------------|----------|----------|-------------------------------------|
| * * | * *            | * * | * * | * *                            | * * |
|     |                |     |     | President, Chief  Executive Officer |
|     |                |     |     |                                |   |
| Date:    | August 8, 2008 |     |     |                                |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION OF


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the accompanying Yearly Report on Form 10-K of Maxconcept International Holdings, Inc., for the year ending July 31, 2010, I, Wong Wa Kei Anthony, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1. Such yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending July 31, 2010, 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 such yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maxconcept International Holdings, Inc.


Dated: November 1, 2010


Maxconcept International Holdings, Inc




By:
/s/ Wong Wa Kei Anthony

President, Secretary,

Chief Financial Officer and Director
#### UNITED NATIONAL BANK OF LONG ISLAND, Appellant, v. Stanley W. PAYNE, Appellee.

No. 83.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 16, 1942.

George Foster, Jr., of New York City, and Priest & Carson, of Forest Hills, N. Y. (Arthur H. Priest, of Forest Hills, N. Y., of counsel), for appellant.

*863Thomas D. Austin and Austin & Du Pont, all of Jamaica (Stephen J. Masse, of Jamaica, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, CLARK, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order, 48 F.Supp. 360, affirmed on opinion below.