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

No. 14

- 60809 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. RUBEN CASTANEDA, also known as Big Brother, also known as June Bug , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:10

- CR

- 160

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Ruben Castaneda has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castaneda has filed a response and a supplemental

response

. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair
evaluation of Castaneda ’s claims of ine ffective assistance of counsel; we

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 May 10, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60809 Document: 00513499989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2016No. 14

- 60809

2 therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review.
See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s supplemental brief and the relevant portions
of the record reflected therein, as well as Castaneda ’s response s . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
Castaned a’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 14-60809 Document: 00513499989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2016
Jamie Paul DESPER, petitioner, v. Gary BASS, et al.

No. 12-8962.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
HIRSCHFELD 

KRAEMER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LA W

SAN FRANCISCO

1

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND ORDER 

CASE NO.: 17-CV-00122-MEJ 4811-1503-8024

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

JOHN F. BAUM (SBN 148366)

MONTE GRIX (SBN 241050) 

HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP 

505 Montgomery Street 13th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 835-9000 

Facsimile: (415) 834-0443 

Attorneys for Defendant 

RACK ROOM SHOES, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MOHAMMED HOQUE,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cv-00122-MEJ

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND 

ORDER 

United States Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena 

James 

Complaint Filed: October 31, 2016, 2016

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above-captioned action is 

voluntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each 

party to bear its own fees and costs. 

Dated: May 19, 2017 HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP 

By: /s/ John F. Baum

John F. Baum 

Monte K. Grix 

Attorneys for Defendant 

RACK ROOM SHOES, INC. 

Dated: May 19, 2017 JACHIMOWICZ POINTER

By: /s/ Joel P. Waelty

Joel P. Waelty 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MOHAMMED HOQUE
HIRSCHFELD 

KRAEMER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LA W

SAN FRANCISCO

2

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND ORDER 

CASE NO.: 17-CV-00122-MEJ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________________, 2017 __________________________________________ 

Maria-Elena James 

United States Magistrate Judge 

May 19, 2017
Jonathon SILVERSKY, petitioner, v. Martin FRINK, Warden, et al.

No. 12-9260.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

(Electronically Filed)

JONATHON L. ANDERSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00420-PPS-RBC

)

FAMILY DOLLAR SERVICES, INC.

and 

PROGRESSIVE LOGISTICS SERVICES, 

LLC,

and

LMS INTELLIBOUND, LLC,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, Jonathon L. Anderson, and Defendants, LMS Intellibound, LLC, Progressive 

Logistics Services, LLC, and Family Dollar Services, Inc., by and through counsel, give notice 

that the parties have resolved the above-captioned cause of action and that they stipulate and 

agree to dismissal of said cause of action with prejudice. The parties have agreed that each party 

shall bear its own costs. A proposed Order is submitted herewith. 

case 1:12-cv-00420-PPS-RBC document 17 filed 01/24/13 page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted, this 24th day of January, 2013,

/s/ Ilene M. Smith (with permission)

Christopher C. Myers

Ilene M. Smith

Nathan D. Hougatt

CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES

809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

cmyers@myers-law.com

ismith@myers-law.com

nhougatt@myers-law.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/ Emily N. Litzinger

Todd B. Logsdon

Emily N. Litzinger

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

220 West Main Street, Suite 2000

Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Phone: (502) 561-3990

Fax: (502) 561-3991

tlogsdon@laborlawyers.com

elitzinger@laborlawyers.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, 

PROGRESSIVE LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC

AND LMS INTELLIBOUND, LLC

/s/ Brian L. Mosby (with permission)

Brian L. Mosby

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

111 Monument Circle, Suite 702

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

bmosby@littler.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, FAMILY 

DOLLAR SERVICES, INC

case 1:12-cv-00420-PPS-RBC document 17 filed 01/24/13 page 2 of 2
Introducing FaceTime video calling. Smile.

© 2010 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. 1-800-MY-APPLE or www.apple.com. Wireless service plan required. FaceTime requires iPhone 4 and Wi-Fi.

CONFIDENTIAL APL-GRACE_00000940

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-3 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 1 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 2 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 3 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 4 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 5 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 6 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 7 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 8 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 9 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 10 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 11 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 12 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 13 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 14 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 15 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 16 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 17 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 18 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 19 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 20 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 21 of 22

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00424-PPS   document 1   filed 11/20/13   page 22 of 22
Amendment No. 2 to the Company's Long-Term Incentive Plan




 EXHIBIT 10.37 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO 
 KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC.
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. TWO
(“Amendment”) to the Kindred Healthcare, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”) is adopted on the 16th day of December, 2003. 
  
 Reason for
Amendment. This Amendment is intended to allow for different award percentages under the LTIP for employees that are Senior Vice Presidents. 
  
 Amendment. 
  
 Section 2(o) of the LTIP shall be replaced in its entirety with the following: 
  
 (o) “Maximum Award” shall mean the highest amount that may be awarded to Participants in
certain positions or employment levels of the Company, expressed as percentages of such Participants’ Base Salary, as follows: 
  

			
	Position/Level:	  	Percentage of Base Salary:
	 Chief Executive Officer
	  	100%
	 Members of Executive Committee
	  	  90%
	 Senior Vice Presidents
	  	  60%
	 Vice Presidents
	  	  40%
	 Senior Corporate Managers
	  	  25%
	 Other Key Employees
	  	  15%

  
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, Kindred Healthcare, Inc. has executed this instrument on the date first above written. 
  

			
	KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/    Edward L. Kuntz        
	 	 	

	 	 	Edward L. Kuntz, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
1 The Honorable Rodney W. Si ppel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-1141

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Missouri. * Gary E. Sutton, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 12, 2007 Filed: June 20, 2007

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Following Gary Sutton’s (Sutton) convic tion for being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), the district court 1 sentenced Sutton to 280 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release, and imposed a $23,431.92 fine and $100 special a ssessment. Sutton appeals, challenging an evidentiary ruling by the district court and also arguing his sentence is unreasonable and so grossly disproportionate to Sutton’s offense that his sentence violates due process and constitu tes cruel and unusual punishment.-2- We review for abuse of discretion the di strict court’s evidentiary ruling, see United States v. Johnson , 463 F.3d 803, 808 (8th Cir. 2006), and the reasonableness of Sutton’s sentence, see United States v. McMorrow , 471 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2006). We review de novo whether Sutton’s sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed and thus violates due process and ultimately the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See United States v. Weis , __ F.3d __, No. 06-2996, 2007 WL 1437490, at *2, *6 (8th Cir. May 17, 2007) (rejecting the defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge upon finding the defendant’s sentence was “not ‘the rare cas e in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality’” (quoti ng Ewing v. California , 538 U.S. 11, 30 (2003) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957, 1005 (1991)))). As an armed career criminal, Sutton faced a sentence, as specified by Congr ess, at or near the statutory maximum, which in this case is life imprisonment. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(h); United States v. Maloney , 466 F.3d 663, 669 (8th Cir. 2006). Having carefully considered Sutton’s arguments and the record, we find no abuse of discretion or legal error by the district court. Therefore, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
APPENDIX A 

case 3:12-cv-00811-JD-CAN document 38-1 filed 03/18/13 page 1 of 14
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

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

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

 May 26, 2020 b0518

Order 

Clerk

May 26, 2020

160416

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160416

COA: 349838

St. Clair CC: 18-000377-FC

MILTON ARVIN LYLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2019 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Sept. 10, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-15539

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 07-80062-CR-KAM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLIE WYNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 10, 2009)

Before CARNES, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Wyne appeals his convictions for possession of a firearm and

ammunition by a convicted felon; possession with intent to distribute at least five
grams or more of cocaine base; and knowingly carrying a firearm and ammunition

during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Wyne argues the district court

abused its discretion when it denied his request for a recess, which prevented him

from presenting testimony from a defense witness.

The parties agree the district court’s denial of this motion for a recess is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. However, we are precluded “from reviewing an

issue raised on appeal if it has been waived through the doctrine of invited error.” 

United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009) (emphasis and

citation omitted). The “doctrine of invited error is implicated when a party induces

or invites the district court into making an error.” Id (quoting United States v. Stone,

139 F.3d 822, 838 (11th Cir. 1998). 

We do not find the court abused its discretion when it refused Wyne’s request

for a recess. But even if the court erred, Wyne invited the error of which he now

complains. During trial, a defense witness failed to appear at her scheduled time of

9:00 a.m. Wyne told the court that he would exclude her as a witness if she did not

arrive by 10:00 a.m. (R.6-114 at 21.) After Wyne’s defense witness failed to arrive

by his self-imposed deadline, the district court proceeded with the trial. Accordingly,

we affirm Wyne’s convictions and sentences. 

AFFIRMED. 

2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 150 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 150

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide a grant to the 
   State of New Jersey for the construction of a memorial to the New 
     Jersey victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide a grant to the 
   State of New Jersey for the construction of a memorial to the New 
     Jersey victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

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

SECTION 1. GRANT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW JERSEY MEMORIAL.

    The Secretary of the Interior may provide a grant in an amount not 
to exceed $100,000 to the State of New Jersey for the construction of a 
memorial in Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, to the New 
Jersey victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated $100,000 for fiscal year 
2006 for carrying out this Act, such sums to remain available until 
expended.
                                 <all>
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1558

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain computer-assisted 

remote hunting, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2005

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain 

computer-assisted remote hunting, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Computer-Assisted Re5 mote Hunting Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPUTER-ASSISTED REMOTE HUNTING FACILI7 TIES. 

8 (a) OFFENSE.—Chapter 3 of title 18, United States 

9 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
2

•HR 1558 IH 

1 ‘‘§ 49. Computer-assisted remote hunting 

2 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—Whoever, using any instrumen3 tality of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly makes 

4 available a computer-assisted remote hunt shall be fined 

5 under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or 

6 both. 

7 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—Providing an instrumentality of 

8 commerce, such as equipment or access to the Internet, 

9 is not a violation of this section unless the provider intends 

10 the use of the equipment or access for a computer-assisted 

11 remote hunt. 

12 ‘‘(c) CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER LAW.—Nothing 

13 in this section limits the power of State and local authori14 ties to enact laws or regulations concerning computer-as15 sisted remote hunting facilities. 

16 ‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

17 ‘‘(1) the term ‘computer-assisted remote hunt’ 

18 means any use of a computer or any other device, 

19 equipment, or software, to allow a person remotely 

20 to control the aiming and discharge of a weapon so 

21 as to kill or injure an animal while not in the phys22 ical presence of the targeted animal; and 

23 ‘‘(2) the term ‘instrumentality of interstate 

24 commerce’ means any written, wire, radio, television, 

25 or other form of communication in, or using a facil26 ity of, interstate commerce.’’. 
3

•HR 1558 IH 

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

2 at the beginning of chapter 3 of title 18, United States 

3 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

4 item:

‘‘49. Computer-assisted remote hunting.’’.

Æ
Auzio HEWLETT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10026.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7873

AMJAD ABBAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-01-250-2) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 11, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amjad Abbas, Appellant Pro Se. Kent Pendleton Porter, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Amjad Abbas appeals the district court’s order denying reliefon his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Abbas v. INS , No. CA-01-250-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 12, 2001). We also deny Abbas’ motions for bail, summary judgment, an injunction, and declaratory relief. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30988

Summary Calendar

CLEVELAND FERGUSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY; TRISH

FOSTER, Legal Programs Director,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:08-CV-537

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cleveland Ferguson, Louisiana prisoner # 193321, moves this court to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court dismissed Ferguson’s

complaint based on a finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified

immunity and Ferguson failed to state a claim for relief. The district court also

denied Ferguson’s request to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 1, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-30988 Document: 00511068248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2010
No. 09-30988

2

was not taken in good faith. Ferguson’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district

court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Ferguson does not address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his

§ 1983 complaint. Because he fails to identify any error in the district court’s

analysis, any argument is abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Ferguson has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on

appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the

motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied and the appeal is dismissed as

frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as one strike under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Ferguson is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes

under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal

filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.

Case: 09-30988 Document: 00511068248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2010