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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7285

RUBEN MENDEZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE SNYDER, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (CA-05-352-5)

Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 25, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ruben Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

The district court also construed the petition as a motion

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it. Mendez intended

his petition as one under § 2241, and because the district court

did not have jurisdiction under § 2255 to consider the validity of

Mendez’s sentence on his convictions arising out of the Southern

District of Florida, we decline to consider this case under § 2255.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ruben Mendez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000), claiming that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment.

See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). A petitioner may

challenge his sentence under § 2241 only if 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Jones, 226 F. 3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.

2000). Mendez has not established that § 2255 is inadequate or

ineffective as discussed in Jones, so he is not entitled to proceed

under § 2241.* Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0538. SAMMY L. RICHARDS v. WELLS FARGO BANK N. A., et al.

This is the parties’ second appearance before this Court. In the first, Sammy

Richards appealed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Wells Fargo

Bank and finding moot his motion for leave to file counterclaims. We affirmed the

grant of summary judgment but remanded the case for a ruling on the merits of the

motion for leave to file counterclaims. See Richards v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., 325

Ga. App. 722 (754 SE2d 770) (2014). 

On August 13, 2014, the trial court denied Richards’s motion for leave to file

counterclaims and his motion for default judgment. Shortly thereafter, Richards,

appearing pro se, while represented by counsel, filed a motion for recusal. On August

20, 2014, the trial court denied the motion for recusal. In its order, the trial court

expressly found that Richards was still represented by counsel. Despite the fact that

Richards was still represented by counsel, he filed a pro se notice of appeal,

challenging both orders. We lack jurisdiction.

Richards cannot attempt to represent himself while at the same time he is

represented by counsel.

1 See Jacobsen v. Haldi, 210 Ga. App. 817, 819 (1) (437

1 Prior to filing his pro se notice of appeal, Richards filed a document entitled

“Judicial Notice: Withdrawal of Counsel by Plaintiff Nunc Pro Tunc . . . .” However,

this document was of no effect. “A formal withdrawal of counsel cannot be

accomplished until after the trial court issues an order permitting the withdrawal.

Untilsuch an order properly is made and entered, no formal withdrawal can occur and

counsel remains counsel of record.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Tolbert v.

Toole, ___ Ga. ___ (Case No. S14A1158, decided November 17, 2014).

December 18, 2014
SE2d 819) (1993). Accordingly, his pro se notice of appeal is a nullity. See id. See

also Tolbert, supra (appellate court may dismiss an appeal when the appellant is

represented by counsel but files a pro se notice of appeal). For this reason, we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/18/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROSA L. CLARK §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-05-CV-1641-N

§

CITY CENTRAL APARTMENTS §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are hereby accepted as the Findings of the Court. 

SO ORDERED November 18, 2005.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01641-N Document 9 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 26
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 958 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 958

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to expand the allowable use 
  criteria for new access points grants for community health centers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Maximizing Outcomes through Better 
Investments in Lifesaving Equipment for (MOBILE) Health Care Act''.

SEC. 2. NEW ACCESS POINTS GRANTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 330(e)(6)(A) of the Public Health Service 
Act (42 U.S.C. 254b(e)(6)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                            ``(v) Mobile units.--An existing health 
                        center may be awarded funds under clause (i) to 
                        establish a new delivery site that is a mobile 
                        unit, regardless of whether the applicant 
                        additionally proposes to establish a permanent, 
                        full-time site. In the case of a health center 
                        that is not currently receiving funds under 
                        this section, such health center may be awarded 
                        funds under clause (i) to establish a new 
                        delivery site that is a mobile unit only if 
                        such health center uses a portion of such funds 
                        to also establish a permanent, full-time 
                        site.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on January 1, 2024.

            Passed the Senate September 6, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 958

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to expand the allowable use 
  criteria for new access points grants for community health centers.
```
##### 



Exhibit
10.1
 LifePoint Hospitals, Inc.
 Change in Control Severance Plan and
 Summary Plan Description
 Effective June 1, 2002
As Amended and Restated May 9, 2006




---



##### 



LifePoint Hospitals, Inc.
 Change in Control Severance Plan and
 Summary Plan Description
 table of contents
 PageIntroduction
    
    
    1Section 1 In General
    
    
    1Section 2 Definitions
    
    
    1Section 3 What Benefits Are Provided Under the Plan?
    
    
    3Section 4 How Do I Become Eligible to Receive Benefits?
    
    
    6Section 5 How Do I Make a Claim for Benefits?
    
    
    7Section 6 Can I Lose My Plan Benefits?
    
    
    8Section 7 What Are My Rights if My Claim for Benefits Is Denied?
    
    
    8Section 8 May I Assign My Rights Under This Plan?
    
    
    9Section 9 What Events Can Cause the Plan To Be Changed or Terminated?
    
    
    9Section 10 Additional Information
    
    
    10Section 11 What Are My Rights Under ERISA?
    
    
    10Section 12 Summary of Plan Information
    
    
    11Exhibit A Eligible Employees
    
    
    13




---



##### 



Introduction
    SECTION 1 In General
    SECTION 2 Definitions
  Administrator Plan Administrator




---



##### 



Affiliate
 Annual Pay
   Benefit
 Change in Control
 Company
 Eligible Employee
 Employee
 ERISA
 Plan
 Successor Employer
 2




---



##### 



SECTION 3 What Benefits Are Provided Under the Plan?
 Severance Benefits
          3




---



##### 



Additional Payments For Certain Tax Liabilities
 4
              5




---



##### 



Schedule of Payments
 SECTION 4 How Do I Become Eligible to Receive Benefits?
   6




---



##### 



SECTION 5 How Do I Make a Claim for Benefits?
  7




---



##### 



SECTION 6 Can I Lose My Plan Benefits?
  SECTION 7 What Are My Rights if My Claim for Benefits Is Denied?
          8




---



##### 



SECTION 8 May I Assign My Rights Under This Plan?
  SECTION 9 What Events Can Cause the Plan To Be Changed or Terminated?
        9




---



##### 



SECTION 10 Additional Information
   SECTION 11 What Are My Rights Under ERISA?
           10




---



##### 



SECTION 12 Summary of Plan Information
   
      
  11




---



##### 



th
 LifePoint Hospitals, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ William F. Carpenter IIIIts:
    
    Executive Vice President
 12




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 Eligible Employees
  Category One:
  Category Two:
 
 13
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 51236 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
SERGIO MALTOS

- ESTRADA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:15

- CR

- 510

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Maltos

- Estrada has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Maltos

- Estrada h a s not filed a response. We have revi ewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* 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 November 23, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-51236 Document: 00513771184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2016No. 15

- 51236

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, couns el is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-51236 Document: 00513771184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 43 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 43

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the 
 Treasury and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relating to 
    ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Updating Payment 
Parameters, Section 1332 Waiver Implementing Regulations, and Improving 
            Health Insurance Markets for 2022 and Beyond''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 23, 2022

Mrs. Hyde-Smith (for herself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Risch, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. 
Marshall, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Braun, Mr. Thune, Mr. Daines, Mr. Cruz, Ms. 
   Lummis, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Moran, Mr. Scott of 
    Florida, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Cotton, and Mr. 
  Boozman) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the 
 Treasury and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relating to 
    ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Updating Payment 
Parameters, Section 1332 Waiver Implementing Regulations, and Improving 
            Health Insurance Markets for 2022 and Beyond''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of the Treasury and the Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services relating to ``Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act; Updating Payment Parameters, Section 1332 Waiver 
Implementing Regulations, and Improving Health Insurance Markets for 
2022 and Beyond'' (86 Fed. Reg. 53412 (September 27, 2021)), and such 
rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL TOTAL TIME (mins):

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MINUTE ORDER

DEPUTY CLERK REPORTER/FTR

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATE NEW CASE CASE NUMBER

APPEARANCES

DEFENDANT AGE CUST P/NP ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT PD. RET.

APPT.

U.S. ATTORNEY INTERPRETER FIN. AFFT

SUBMITTED 

COUNSEL APPT'D 

PROBATION OFFICER PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER DEF ELIGIBLE FOR

APPT'D COUNSEL 

PARTIAL PAYMENT 

OF CJA FEES 

PROCEEDINGS SCHEDULED TO OCCUR

INITIAL APPEAR PRELIM HRG MOTION JUGM'T & SENTG STATUS

TRIAL SET 

I.D. COUNSEL ARRAIGNMENT BOND HEARING IA REV PROB. or

 or S/R

OTHER

DETENTION HRG ID / REMOV HRG CHANGE PLEA PROB. REVOC. ATTY APPT 

HEARING

INITIAL APPEARANCE

ADVISED

OF RIGHTS

ADVISED

OF CHARGES

NAME AS CHARGED

IS TRUE NAME

TRUE NAME:

ARRAIGNMENT

ARRAIGNED ON

INFORMATION

ARRAIGNED ON

INDICTMENT

READING WAIVED

SUBSTANCE

WAIVER OF INDICTMENT FILED

RELEASE

RELEASED

ON O/R

ISSUED

APPEARANCE BOND

AMT OF SECURITY SPECIAL NOTES PASSPORT

SURRENDERED

DATE: 

$

PROPERTY TO BE POSTED CORPORATE SECURITY REAL PROPERTY:

CASH $

MOTION

FOR

DETENTION

PRETRIAL

SERVICES

REPORT

DETAINED RELEASED DETENTION HEARING

AND FORMAL FINDINGS

WAIVED

REMANDED

TO CUSTODY

ORDER REMOVED TO THE DISTRICT OF 

PLEA

CONSENT

ENTERED

NOT GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY TO COUNTS:

PRESENTENCE

REPORT ORDERED

CHANGE OF PLEA PLEA AGREEMENT

FILED

OTHER:

CONTINUANCE

 TO: ATTY APPT

HEARING

BOND

HEARING

STATUS RE:

CONSENT TRIAL SET

 AT: SUBMIT FINAN.

AFFIDAVIT

PRELIMINARY

HEARING

BBBBBBBBBBBBB

$55$,*1MENT

CHANGE OF

PLEA

67$786

BEFORE HON. DETENTION

HEARING

 MOTIONS JUDGMENT &

SENTENCING

TIME WAIVED TIME EXCLUDABLE 

UNDER 18 § USC

3161

IDENTITY /

REMOVAL

HEARING

PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE

PROB/SUP REV.

HEARING

ADDITIONAL PROCEEDINGS

DOCUMENT NUMBER:

9:30 AM

Maria-Elena James

8 minutes

Melinda K. Lozenski FTR 9:53-10:01

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY December 30, 2016 3:16-mj-71706-MAG

David Lynch Y P Gabriela Bischof (provisionally appt.)

Robert Leach

Kalisi Kupu

Rule 5 - held

1/3/2017

Defendant may not qualify for Court appointed counsel; Gabriela Bischof is provisionally appointed. Defendant to be

interviewed by Pretrial Services after Court. Pretrial Services may provide the Court with an oral report at the next hearing.

Cc: RM
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 Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of open virtual meeting.

# SUMMARY:

On January 8, 2025, the Department of Energy published a notice of open meeting announcing a virtual meeting on January 30, 2025, of the Electric Vehicle Working Group (EVWG). This notice announces the cancellation of this virtual meeting.

# DATES:

                        The virtual meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 30, 2025, announced in the Wednesday, January 8, 2025, issue of the                         **Federal Register**                         (FR Doc. 2025-00219, 90 FR 1474), is cancelled.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dr. Rachael Nealer, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; email:                         *evwg@ee.doe.gov;*                         telephone: (202) 586-3916.                    

## Signing Authority

                        This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 24, 2025, by David Borak, Committee Management Officer, Secretarial Office of Boards & Councils, pursuant to delegated authority from the Acting Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

Signed in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2025.

Treena V. Garrett,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

[FR Doc. 2025-01887 Filed 1-28-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.L., C.L., MINOR**

**CHILDREN**

**PETITION OF: D.L., BIRTH FATHER :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 429 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

**IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.L., CH L.,**

**MINOR CHILDREN**

**PETITION OF: D.L., BIRTH FATHER :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 430 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 7th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3106

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Kendal Duane Letcher lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ Submitted: April 7, 2023 Filed: April 12, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Kendal Letcher appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to a child pornography offense. His counsel has moved for leave to

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 4

To Declaration of Jarad Brown in Support of 

Federal Trade Commission’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment
PX 10 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JSC Document 1-1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 28 of 31
PX 10

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JSC Document 1-1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 29 of 31
PX 11 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JSC Document 1-1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 30 of 31
PX1

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JSC Document 1-1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 31 of 31
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 44 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 44

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
   present the statue of Harry S. Truman from the people of Missouri.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 12, 2022

Mr. Blunt (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Schumer, and 
 Mr. Hawley) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
   present the statue of Harry S. Truman from the people of Missouri.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR CEREMONY FOR PRESENTATION OF STATUE OF 
              HARRY S. TRUMAN FROM THE PEOPLE OF MISSOURI.

    The State of Missouri is authorized to use the rotunda of the 
Capitol on September 29, 2022, for a ceremony to present the statue of 
Harry S. Truman from the people of Missouri for placement in the 
rotunda of the Capitol. Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 
Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.
                                 <all>
```