alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6467** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. THEODORE HOWZE, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. ( 3:98

- cr - 00299

- GCM

- 1 )

Submitted : May 7, 2013 Decided: May 10, 2013

Before KING and SHEDD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Theodore Howze, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are n ot binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Theodore Howze, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Finding no error, we affirm.
“C oram nobis is an extraordinary remedy tha t has traditionally been used to attack [federal] convictions with continuing consequences when the petitioner is no longer in custody for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Rhines , 640 F.3d 69, 71 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omi tted)

. A petitioner “may not resort to a writ of error c oram nobis simply because he cannot meet the standards for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion.” Id. at 72. Here, Howze sought , by way of coram nobis, to benefit from our decision in Unit ed States v. Simmons , 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We previously denied Howze’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244 (2006) motion, in which he sought leave to file a successive § 2255 motion raising the Simmons issue. Howze also has sought relief under Simmons b y way of a § 2255 motion, which the district court denied

. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief

. Not only is Howze incarcerated , but coram nobis is unavailable to a petitioner, such as Howze, who seeks through the writ to evade the limitation on second or successive § 2255 motions.3 We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequa tely presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Atanas P. STOEV, Appellant, v. Necole G. STOEV, Appellee.

No. 1D18-724

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Date:. ""TW.sh~J 1 :V:,/.2.CJJ{p rJ: .2 ll)'YYJ 

Meehng: ~ -:ro-(~ /-Q_~, 

Rule(s) Discussed: et; c;Jv--6.._-f+' vu .... Lz ./ 

Written MateriaJszy~o 

Name Organization Phone N urn ber 

I M f> "'-L v IUI'""'j 

A I P- ?c.! I V\II)N c.u ~"'l"1l-C..l.- 0 ~~~Ci'"
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 43 (Thursday, March 4, 2004)]
[Corrections]
[Page 10298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: Z4-391]



Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 43 / Thursday, March 4, 2004 / 
CORRECTIONS

[[Page 10298]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC04-66-000]


Entergy Asset Management, Inc., Entergy Power Ventures, L.P., 
Warren Power, LLC, and East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing

February 19, 2004.

Correction

    In notice document E4-391 beginning on page 8945 in the issue of 
Thursday, February 26, 2004, make the following correction:
    On page 8945, in the third column, the docket number should read as 
set forth above.

[FR Doc. Z4-391 Filed 3-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Terry Darnell ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-281

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 7, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Marie Suzie FORTUNE, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, Doing Business As Christiana Trust, Not In Its Individual Capacity But Solely As Legal Title Trustee For Bronze Creek Title Trust 2013-NPL1, Kass Schuler P.A., Appellees.

No. 4D18-607

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 1, 2018]

Marie Suzie Fortune, Miramar, pro se.

No brief filed on behalf of appellees.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.* Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

Gerber, C.J., May and Ciklin, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search:  Meteor Crater

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_data(3)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(17)
              - multimedia_image(5)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149203(2)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - (-)news_other_news(1)
              - other_basic-43(1)

## By Location

              - california(2)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - virginia(1)

## By Year

Center News        June 28, 2022        Asteroid Day: How do you prepare for an asteroid impact?

Presentations and Events        April 23, 2015        PubTalk 04/2015—"Fearfully Grand" Eruptions: Lassen Peak, CA, 1914-17

Presentations and Events        March 22, 2007        PubTalk 3/2007 — Impact!
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-20315]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00352- CR

Justin B regoff, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 427 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 11- 2063 77, H ONO RAB LE JIM CO RONADO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant J ustin B r e g o f f o f a g g r a v ated assault with a deadly wea pon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a) (2) (West 2011) (ag g ravated assault). Punishm ent, enhanc ed by a prior felony conviction in New J erse y for possession with intent to distribute a co n t ro l l ed dang erous substance, was assessed at six y ear s’ imprisonment. See id. §§ 12.32 (punishment for first deg ree felony includes life in prison or any term of not more than 99 y ear s or less than 5 y ear s plus
up to $10,000 fine), .42(b) (West 2011) (sec ond deg ree felony offe nse shall car ry punishment rang e attributable to first deg ree felony offe nse upon finding of prior f elony conviction).
Br eg off’ s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal i s fr i v o l o u s an d without merit. The brief m eets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia by prese nting a profe ssional ev al u ation of the rec ord demonstrating wh y t h er e ar e no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 7 3 8 ,744 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio ,

488 U.S. 75 (1988).

Br eg off was serve d a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to f ile a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766. No pro se br ief or othe r written r esponse ha s been f iled.
We have revie wed the rec ord, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find no

reve rsibl e er ro r. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that the re cord pr esents

no arg uably meritoriou s gro u n d s for revie w and the appea l is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

____________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Goodwin and F ield
Affir med Filed: Apr il 18, 2013 Do not publish

2
Certificate Number: 00927-FLS-DE-036134882

Bankruptcy Case Number: 21-16573

00927-FLS-DE-036134882

CERTIFICATE OF DEBTOR EDUCATION

I CERTIFY that on November 12, 2021, at 1:08 o'clock PM EST,

CHRISTOPHER NIMETH completed a course on personal financial management

given by internet by 247 Bankruptcy Class, Inc., a provider approved pursuant to

11 U.S.C. 111 to provide an instructional course concerning personal financial

management in the Southern District of Florida.

Date: November 12, 2021 By: /s/OLIVIA MARTINEZ

Name: OLIVIA MARTINEZ

Title: Certified Credit Counselor

Case 21-16573-LMI Doc 43 Filed 11/12/21 Page 1 of 1
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 39

 40

 41

 42

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/04

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

★ ■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

★ ● ● ●

●
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Wildfire-driven forest conversion in western North American landscapes      

      July 1, 2020    

Changing disturbance regimes and climate can overcome forest ecosystem resilience. Following high-severity fire, forest recovery may be compromised by lack of tree seed sources, warmer and drier postfire climate, or short-interval reburning. A potential outcome of the loss of resilience is the conversion of the prefire forest to a different forest type or nonforest vegetation. Conversion implies major, extensive, and enduring changes in dominant species, life forms, or functions, with impacts on ecosystem services. In the present article, we synthesize a growing body of evidence of fire-driven conversion and our understanding of its causes across western North America. We assess our capacity to predict conversion and highlight important uncertainties. Increasing forest vulnerability to changing fire activity and climate compels shifts in management approaches, and we propose key themes for applied research coproduced by scientists and managers to support decision-making in an era when the prefire forest may not return.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Ellis  Q Margolis, PhD

##### Research Ecologist

Fort Collins Science Center

emargolis@usgs.gov

505-954-2156

## Related Content

#### Ellis  Q Margolis, PhD

##### Research Ecologist

Fort Collins Science Center

emargolis@usgs.gov

505-954-2156

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Fort Collins Science Center          

2150 Centre AvenueBldg CFort Collins, CO80526United States

970-226-9100

970-226-9230

### Explore Search

                  - Biology
                  - Ecosystems
                  - canada
                  -  United States
                  - Alaska
                  -  Alberta
                  -  Arizona
                  -  British Columbia
                  -  California
                  -  Colorado
                  -  Idaho
                  -  Montana
                  -  Nevada
                  -  New Mexico
                  -  Northwest Territories
                  -  Oregon
                  -  Saskatchewan
                  -  Utah
                  -  Washington
                  -  Wyoming
                  -  Yukon

View All **
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10116 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JOSE JULIAN OROZCO

- LOPEZ, also known as Jose Julian Orozco

- Torres, also known as Jose Julian Lopez

- Torres , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10

- CR

- 50

- 1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Julian Orozco

- Lopez, federal prisoner # 41253

- 177 , is serving a 3 24

- month term of imprisonment for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine

. He appeals the district c ourt’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base

* 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 Cour t of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 4, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10116 Document: 00513258881 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2015No. 15

- 10116

2 offense levels in the drug quantity table set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)

. Orozco

- Lop e z asks this court to appoint counsel in his case. At his original sentencing, Orozco

- Lopez was assigned a base offense level of 38 under § 2D1.1(c)(1) because his offense involved the equivalent of 324,437.32 kilograms of marijuana. Under amended § 2D1. 1(c), Orozco

Lopez’s base offense level remains 38. § 2D1.1(c) (1)

. In determining the effect of an amendment for purposes of § 3582(c)(2), a defendant’s other applicable sentencing adjustments and criminal history remain unchanged

. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)( 1). Thus, Amendment 782 d id not lower Orozco

- Lopez ’s applicable guideline s range of 324

- 405 months of imprisonment , and § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in his sentence

. Se e § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. Orozco

- Lopez c omplains that the district court should not have based its decision on his presentence report w ithout giving him notice and an opportunity to challenge its reliability. He also complains that the district court denied his motion without consider ing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a ) factors

a nd gave h im no opportunity to respond to its de cision. He has not shown an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hernandez , 645 F.3d 709, 71 1

- 1 2 (5th Cir. 2011)

. Nor has he shown that the district court abused its discretion b y de clining to appoint counsel. We will not consider Orozco

- Lopez’s challenges to his conviction and original sentenc e , which are raised for the first time on appeal and are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1010

- 11 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Orozco

- Lopez’s motion for the appointment of appellate counsel is DENIED. Case: 15-10116 Document: 00513258881 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2015
Exhibit
      10.25





**AMENDMENT**


**TO
      THE**


**INGERSOLL-RAND
      COMPANY**


**ELECTED
      OFFICERS SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM**








**WHEREAS,** Ingersoll-Rand
      Company (the “Company”) maintains the Ingersoll-Rand Company Elected Officers
      Supplemental Program (the “Plan”) which was originally effective on June 30,
      1995, was thereafter amended and restated, effective as of January 1, 2003,
      and
      was thereafter amended; and





**WHEREAS,** the
      Board of Directors of the Company desires to amend the Plan to freeze all
      deferrals effective December 31, 2004 to the extent such deferrals would
      otherwise be subject to section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
      as
      amended.





**NOW,
      THEREFORE,** the Plan
      is hereby amended, effective December 31, 2004, as set forth below:





1.
            The
                Introduction of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following as
                a new
                paragraph to the end thereof:





“Notwithstanding
      any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, (i) no amount shall be deferred
      under the Plan if, pursuant to the effective date rules of Section 885(d) of
      the
      American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and Q&A-16 of IRS Notice 2005-1, such
      amount would be subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
      as
      amended (a “Non-Grandfathered New Deferral Amount”), and (ii) any amount
      previously credited under the Plan that, pursuant to the effective date rules
      of
      Section 885(d) of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and Q&A-16 of IRS
      Notice 2005-1, is subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
      as amended (a “Non-Grandfathered Prior Deferral Amount”) shall no longer be
      credited or payable under the Plan after December 31, 2004. Any
      Non-Grandfathered New Deferral Amount shall instead be deferred under the
      Ingersoll-Rand Company Elected Officers Supplemental Program II, and any
      Non-Grandfathered Prior Deferral Amount shall instead be credited under the
      Ingersoll-Rand Company Elected Officers Supplemental Program II, as and to
      the
      extent provided under the terms of the Ingersoll-Rand Company Elected Officers
      Supplemental Program II.”





2.
            Except
                as specifically set forth herein, all other terms of the Plan shall
                remain
                in full force and effect and are hereby ratified in all
                respects.







1


**IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF** ,
      the
      Company has caused this amendment to be executed by its duly authorized
      representative on this 1 st day of
      February, 2006.




**INGERSOLL-RAND
                COMPANY**By:
              /s/ Timothy
                McLevishTimothy
                McLevishSenior
                Vice-President and Chief Financial
                Officer




2
Form CGFCRD3V (5/21/2020)

United States Bankruptcy Court

 Southern District of Florida

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

Case Number: 20−20259−RAM

Chapter: 11

In re:

It'Sugar FL I LLC

dba It'Sugar

19575 Biscayne Blvd

Ste 115

Aventura, FL 33180

EIN: 20−4897206

NOTICE OF HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a hearing will be held on December 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM

by VIDEO CONFERENCE.

**IMPORTANT** The hearing scheduled by this notice will take place only by video conference. DO NOT

GO TO THE COURTHOUSE. Attorneys must advise their clients not to appear at the courthouse. To

participate in the hearing by video conference please refer to the instructions under the name of the

presiding Judge on the Court's web site, www.flsb.uscourts.gov.

At the hearing, the Court will consider the following:

[186] Motion for Leave to File Late Proof of Claim and to Deem Proof of Claim Timely Filed Filed by

Creditor BBMK Contracting, LLC

To register for the video conference, CLICK HERE or manually enter the following registration link in a

browser:

https://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJItcu2qpjsiGQdLWOMfCx2−thaby5H7PlU

THE MOVANT, OR MOVANT'S COUNSEL IF REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY, MUST SERVE A

COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF HEARING and, unless previously served, the above−described document(s)

on all required parties within the time frame required by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Local

Rules, and orders of the Court, and MUST FILE A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE as to the extent required

under Local Rules 2002−1(F) and 9073−1(B). Any party who fails to properly serve any pleading or other

paper may be denied the opportunity to be heard thereon.

PLEASE NOTE: No person may record the proceedings from any location by any means. The audio

recording maintained by the Court will be the sole basis for creation of a transcript that constitutes the

official record of the hearing. Although conducted using video conferencing technology, the hearing is a

court proceeding. The formalities of the courtroom must be observed. All participants must dress

appropriately, exercise civility, and otherwise conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the dignity of

the Court.

Dated: 12/14/20 CLERK OF COURT

By: Jacqueline Antillon

Courtroom Deputy

Case 20-20259-RAM Doc 187 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 1
Alieda THOMAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3226

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Conference Papers 

#           Why study impact cratering?      

      January 1, 1977    

No abstract available.

## Citation Information
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4 -**  **6 480** 

NEKITA ANTONIO WHITE , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,
v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T.S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1 :1 3

- c v - 0 0 804

- TSE

- TRJ )

Submitted : July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Nekita Antonio White , Appellant Pro Se
. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nekita Antonio White seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu tional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruli ng is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we de ny White’s motion for a certificate of appealability , deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSE D
EXHIBIT  32

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

     The undersigned, Stephen M. Siedow, the Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer of MNS EAGLE EQUITY GROUP III, INC. (the "Company"),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY, that:

     1.   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
          June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) 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.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 30th day of July, 2004.


                                            By:  /s/  Stephen M. Siedow
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Stephen M. Siedow
                                                      Chief Executive Officer,
                                                      President and
                                                      Chief Financial Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to MNS EAGLE EQUITY GROUP III, INC. and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it staff upon
request.