alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51050

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

ROY LEE WELLS, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 6:88-CR-32-1 

Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Roy Lee Wells, Jr., federal prisoner # 40052-080, was sentenced in 1988 

under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 480 months of imprisonment 

and five years of supervised release. Wells filed a motion invoking Johnson v. 

United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015), which invalidated the ACCA’s 

residual clause, and 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was denied, and Wells 

appealed. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51050 Document: 00513936245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2017
No. 15-51050

2 

Wells’s brief requests a certificate of appealability (COA), which must 

issue for this court to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 

U.S. 134, 142 (2012) (§ 2254 case). Wells’s contention that Johnson applies 

retroactively and implicates the constitutionality of his conviction under the 

ACCA satisfies the threshold COA standard. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000). Nevertheless, we agree with the Government that Wells’s 

claims are ultimately without merit in light of his three Texas controlled 

substance offenses. These convictions are ACCA predicates separate from 

residual clause offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii); United States v. 

Vickers, 540 F.3d 356, 363–66 (5th Cir. 2008). Further briefing is therefore 

unnecessary. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998).

For these reasons, we GRANT Wells a COA; we GRANT the 

Government’s motion for summary affirmance and AFFIRM; we DENY as 

unnecessary the Government’s alternative request for additional time to file a 

brief; and we DENY Wells’s motion to dismiss the indictment as moot. 

 

 Case: 15-51050 Document: 00513936245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

NANCY ISLAS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-CV-845-WCL-CAN 

 ) 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING ) 

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW ) 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER; ) 

AMERIDOSE, LLC; ALAUNUS ) 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY ) 

CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; ) 

and GREGORY CONIGLIARO, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEY IN CIVIL CASE

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Defendants, ALAUNUS 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; and GREGORY 

CONIGLIARO. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. 

LEWIS WAGNER LLP 

By: /s/ Dina M. Cox 

DINA M. COX, #18590-49 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 

case 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN document 10 filed 01/09/13 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on January 9, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas A. Mulvaney 

Stutsman & Mulvaney 

1300 Cassopolis Street 

P.O. Box 1337 

Elkhart, Indiana 46515 

/s/ Dina M. Cox 

 DINA M. COX 

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 

Indianapolis, IN 46202 

Phone: (317) 237-0500 

FAX: (317) 630-2790 

dcox@lewiswagner.com Q:\NECC\13 - Islas\Federal Court Action\appearance_DMC_Alaunus.docx

case 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN document 10 filed 01/09/13 page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         201,482
<SECURITIES>                                       600
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,484
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               253,566
<PP&E>                                       4,001,642
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,792,688
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,462,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,829
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,411,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,462,520
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               439,820
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                368,805
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            368,805
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   368,805
<EPS-BASIC>                                    41.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    41.72


</TABLE>
John H. MORLEY, Jr., petitioner, v. Stanley, FIELD, et al.

No. 13-465.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, denied.
Timothy Scott MARCUM, et ux., petitioners, v. Haskel AYERS, et ux.

No. 12-10441.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**
  **Certification**
  I,
        Terry
        L. McCoy, in my capacity as Executive Vice President of First Horizon Asset
        Securities Inc (the Depositor) do hereby certify that:
 
 1.    I
        have
        reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to
        be
        filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of First
        Horizon Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2007-AR3 (the “Exchange Act periodic
        reports”);
 
 2.    Based
        on
        my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
        contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
        fact
        necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
        which
        such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
        by
        this report;
 
 3.    Based
        on
        my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required
        to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
        in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4.  Based
        upon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this
        report
        under Item 1123 of Regulation AB and except as disclosed in the Exchange
        Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under
        the
        servicing agreements in all material respects; and
 
 5.    All
        of
        the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
        securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
        with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
        in
        this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange
        Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
        report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
        of
        noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
        on
        Form 10-K.
 
 In
        giving
        the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
        to me
        by The Bank of New York.
  **First
                  Horizon Asset Securities Inc., as Depositor**By:
              /s/
                  Terry L. McCoyTerry
                  L. McCoy,Executive
                  Vice President
                (Senior
                  Officer of the Depositor in charge of
                Securitization)
  Date:
        March 28, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12488]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Shirley A. Reynolds, et al.; Change in Bank Control Notices; 
Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than June 5, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261:
    1. Shirley A. Reynolds, Huntington, West Virginia; Marshall T. 
Reynolds, Huntington, West Virginia; Robert L. Shell, Jr., 
Barboursville, West Virginia; Robert H. Beymer, Huntington, West 
Virginia; Barbara W. Beymer, Huntington, West Virginia; Deborah P. 
Wright, Flatwoods, Kentucky; Thomas W. Wright, Flatwoods, Kentucky; and 
Jeanne D. Hubbard, Huntington, West Virginia; all to acquire a total of 
71.3 percent of the voting shares of Abigail Adams National Bancorp, 
Inc., Washington, D.C., and thereby indirectly acquire The Adams 
National Bank, Washington, D.C.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 16, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-12488 Filed 5-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-19

)

MATTHEW D. HOTTINGER )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Susan Collins, on

January 30, 2015, with the written consents of the Defendant, counsel for the Defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the Defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charges against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the Defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 2 of the two-count Indictment, and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 30th day of January 2015.

/s Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
case 3:13-cv-00163-TLS-CAN document 1-2 filed 03/05/13 page 1 of 2
case 3:13-cv-00163-TLS-CAN document 1-2 filed 03/05/13 page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99
----------




                       SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
                       -------------------------



     The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

     Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of CARLYLE REAL ESTATE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - XIII.




    By: /s/  H. Rigel Barber            By: /s/  Gailen J. Hull
        ---------------------------         ---------------------------
        H. Rigel Barber                     Gailen J. Hull
        Chief Executive Officer             Chief Financial Officer and
                                            Principal Accounting Officer
Jeremy Anthony EDEN, petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General.

No. 12-8956.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 12

Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries

Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges



|                                                                                                              |      |                             |      |  |   |     
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | --------------------------- | ---- |  | - | ----
|(Dollars in millions)                                                                                         |      | Three Months EndedMarch 31,
|                                                                                                              | 2005 |                             | 2004
|Income from continuing operations before provision for income tax                                             |      | $                           | 44   |  | $ | 73  
|Fixed charges                                                                                                 |      |                             | 89   |  |   | 84  
|                                                                                                             
|Income from continuing operations before provision for income tax and fixed charges                           |      | $                           | 133  |  | $ | 157 
|                                                                                                             
|Fixed charges:                                                                                                |      |                             |      |  |   |     
|Interest expense                                                                                              |      | $                           | 89   |  | $ | 84  
|                                                                                                             
|Ratio of income from continuing operations before provision for income tax and fixed charges to fixed charges |      |                             | 1.49 |  |   | 1.87
|                                                                                                             



31
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ACR GROUP, INC. 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 ACR Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending
May 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alex Trevino, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:



(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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Alex Trevino, Jr.Alex Trevino, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerOctober 15, 2004




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to ACR Group, Inc. and will be retained by ACR Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 31.1Certifications pursuant to Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14 as adopted pursuant to Section302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:I, Michael Maguire, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Baron Energy Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is make known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date withinb) 90days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); andc) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5.The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrants board of directors:a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affectthe registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified forthe registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrants internal controls; and6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequentto the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

---



Date: October 29, 2009/s/Michael MaguireMichael Maguire, President & Director(Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,Principal Accounting Officer)

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

DENNIS HAMILTON, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

 vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:14-CV-133 RM 

)

LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, et al., )

)

Defendants )

O R D E R

The plaintiff having filed no objection to Magistrate Judge John E. Martin’s

Report and Recommendation issued October 31, 2014, the court ACCEPTS the

recommendation that this action be dismissed based on Mr. Hamilton’s failure to

appear at various conferences and prosecute his case. The court now DISMISSES

Mr. Hamilton’s complaint without prejudice and, with the agreement of the

defendants, DISMISSES the counterclaim without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 21, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Chief Judge

United States District Court