alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NICHOLAS EUGENE LANDSIEDEL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

SHANE RANSOME, Community 

Corrections Officer 2, and RICHARD 

MORGAN, Secretary of Corrections, 

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 18-35380 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01421-RAJ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2019**

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Nicholas Eugene Landsiedel appeals pro se from

the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging 

his conviction for attempted rape of a child in the second degree and 

 

* 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

MAR 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35380

communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th 

Cir. 2014), we affirm.

Landsiedel contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by 

failing to communicate a plea offer extended by the State and to advise him 

adequately about another plea offer. The Washington Court of Appeals concluded 

that, even if defense counsel’s performance were deficient, Landsiedel failed to 

demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as a result of the deficient performance. See 

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 164 (2012) (to establish prejudice, defendant must 

show a reasonable probability that he “would have accepted the plea and the 

prosecution would not have withdrawn it . . ., that the court would have accepted 

its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms

would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact 

were imposed”). The state court’s determination was not contrary to, nor an 

unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

To the extent Landsiedel briefed issues beyond the certificate of 

appealability (“COA”), we treat his briefing as a request to expand the COA and 

deny it. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 

1999).
3 18-35380

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-47-2024]

On August 20, 2024, Toyota Material Handling, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 72, in Columbus, Indiana.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (89 FR 68390, August 26, 2024). On December 19, 2024, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14.                

Dated: December 19, 2024.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-30761 Filed 12-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 30, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 16, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1092 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-860, K2025-861.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30841 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
William Charles DEVLIN, DOC #725818, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1101

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 12, 2018

Gary J. Schwartz, Orlando, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MORRIS, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

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

          In connection with the Annual Report of Multilink Technology Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2003 (the “Report”), I, Richard N. Nottenburg, Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer 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:

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

          2.        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|   | By:                           |  /s/      RICHARD N. NOTTENBURG |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                               |
|   | **Richard N. Nottenburg**     |
|   | **Chairman of the Board and** |
|   | **Chief Executive Officer**   |
|   | **March 20, 2003**            |
John Basil ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1657

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 16, 2019]

Howard Finkelstein, Public Defender, and Sarah W. Sandler, Assistant Public Defender, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

**CONFESSION OF ERROR**

Per Curiam.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal with respect to his judgment of conviction and sentence. Due to a malfunctioning of the memory device that held the files from Appellant's jury trial, no stenography notes or audio files of the trial exist. The court below attempted to reconstruct the trial record, but was unable to do so. Thus, Appellant was unable to receive a transcript of his jury trial. The State concedes, and we agree, that Appellant is entitled to a full transcript containing appealable issues. *See**Hardy v. United States* , 375 U.S. 277, 279, 84 S.Ct. 424, 11 L.Ed.2d 331 (1964) ; *Ader v. State* , 814 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ; *Smith v. State* , 801 So.2d 198, 199-200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse Appellant's conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.

*Reversed and remanded for new trial.*

May, Damoorgian and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices 

# Order

February 6, 2007

133127 (16)

ROY KEVIN RUSS-BEY, #164629

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 133127
CoA: 274385 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it
is DENIED because MCL 600. 2963; MSA 27A.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $14.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned
with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being
filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $361.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.
The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 6, 2007

jm
Edward L. BASKIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4122

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquake Myths

Filters

              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - (-)wyoming(1)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        November 1, 2022        Monthly update of activity at Yellowstone Volcano for November 1, 2022
Tommy Lee GAINES, Petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D17-2197

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 21, 2018

Per Curiam.

Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED on the merits.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Wolf and Ray, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, SEP-4: NCI Clinical and Translational Cancer Research, February 04, 2025, 10 a.m. to February 05, 2025, 7 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W264, Rockville, Maryland, 20850 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on                           ( print page 103846)                        November 14, 2024, FR Doc 2024-26497, 89 FR 90021.                

This notice is being amended to change the meeting end time on February 05, 2025, from 7 p.m. to 2 p.m. The meeting is now, February 04, 2025, 10 a.m. to February 05, 2025, 2 p.m. The meeting dates, format, and location will stay the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: December 16, 2024.

David W. Freeman,

Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-30313 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-75,755-04

EX PARTE JOHNATHEN HARRISON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR20133 IN THE 35 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BROWN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of burglary of a

habitation with intent to commit sexual assault and sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. The

Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Harrison v. State, No. 11-11-00241-CR (Tex.

App.—Eastland Aug. 13, 2013).

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and that he had a right to file

a pro se petition for discretionary review.
2

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on

appeal. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s

appellate counsel timely informed Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and that he had

a right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. The trial court shall also make any other

findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of

Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court.

Filed: February 4, 2015

Do not publish
NUMBER 13-23-00233-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE CDM CONSTRUCTORS INC. AND CDM SMITH INC.

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

Relators CDM Constructors Inc. and CDM Smith Inc. filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion to 

dismiss. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a. However, relators have now filed an unopposed motion 

to withdraw this original proceeding as moot. According to their motion, the real party in 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 

47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

interest, the City of Weslaco, Texas, has nonsuited its claims against relators, and the 

nonsuit rendered the petition for writ of mandamus moot. Relators thus request that we 

withdraw their original proceeding as moot.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus 

and relators’ unopposed motion to withdraw, is of the opinion that this matter has been 

rendered moot. See In re Contract Freighters, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Tex. 2022) 

(orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 

(Tex. 2012); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. 

proceeding). Accordingly, we grant relators’ unopposed motion to withdraw, and we 

dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus as moot. 

L. ARON PEÑA JR.

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

31st day of July, 2023.
Vernon B. PORTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2064

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 19, 2018

Vernon B. Porter, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ, and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior United States Circuit ***

Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO HIGINIO VALDIVIEZOAGUILAR, aka Alex Higinio ValdiviezoAguilar,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-71787

Agency No. A026-975-077

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 5, 2010** 

Pasadena, California

Before: CUDAHY, WARDLAW and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. ***

FILED

OCT 20 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Alejandro Higinio Valdiviezo-Aguilar petitions for review of the decision of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s

(IJ’s) conclusion that he is removable under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) as an alien

convicted of committing an offense “relating to a controlled substance.” The IJ

also determined that Valdiviezo-Aguilar is removable under INA §

212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as an alien present in the United States and not in possession of

any valid entry document. Valvidezo-Aguilar did not contest that basis for finding

removability before the BIA; nor does he challenge it in his petition for review

before us. Because Valdiviezo-Aguilar is removable in any event under INA §

212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), we would be unable to provide any effective relief even if we

were to decide the merits of his § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) claim in his favor. 

Accordingly, Valdiviezo-Aguilar’s petition for review is moot, and must be

dismissed. See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Fed. Express Corp.,

558 F.3d 842, 846-47 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pub. Util. Comm’n v. FERC, 100

F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)).

DISMISSED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Annual Report of PSB Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Cole, Chief
Executive Officer 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 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 Company.

/s/ Robert L. Cole
---------------------------------
Robert L. Cole
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,608-01

EX PARTE MILTON SAVAGE JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F-2004-1606-E-WHC 1 IN THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM DENTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault as a habitual felon and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment and a $5000 fine.

Applicant contends, inter alia, that the $5000 fine is not authorized as punishment under the

habitual-felon statute. See TEX.PENALCODE 12.42(d). He is correct. The trial court, with the State’s

agreement, “recommends that Applicant receive relief by having the jury’s verdict reformed by

removing the unauthorized fine from Applicant’s sentence.” The recommendation is supported by

the habeas record and applicable law. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 37.10(b).
2

We hold that the $5000 fine imposed in cause no. F-2004-1606-E, The State of Texas v.

Milton Savage, Jr., from the 367th District Court of Denton County is vacated. The 25-yearsentence

remains unchanged. A review of Applicant’s remaining claims shows that they lack merit. These

claims are denied.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to theTexas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: September 11, 2019

Do not publish