alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:01-cv-08781 Document #: 18  Filed: 11/15/02 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:61

Case: 1:01-cv-08781 Document #: 18  Filed: 11/15/02 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:62

Case: 1:01-cv-08781 Document #: 18  Filed: 11/15/02 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:63

Case: 1:01-cv-08781 Document #: 18  Filed: 11/15/02 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:64

Case: 1:01-cv-08781 Document #: 18  Filed: 11/15/02 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:65

Case: 1:01-cv-08781 Document #: 18  Filed: 11/15/02 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:66

Case: 1:01-cv-08781 Document #: 18  Filed: 11/15/02 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:67

Case: 1:01-cv-08781 Document #: 18  Filed: 11/15/02 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:68

Case: 1:01-cv-08781 Document #: 18  Filed: 11/15/02 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:69

Case: 1:01-cv-08781 Document #: 18  Filed: 11/15/02 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:70
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent SINCLAIR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6193.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

*75Vincent Sinclair, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Sinclair seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sinclair has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          43,875
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                       535
<INVENTORY>                                      9,328
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,422
<PP&E>                                         132,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                (30,864)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 205,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,573
<BONDS>                                        130,090
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           38,069
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   205,909
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,801
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (41,205)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (10)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,309
<INCOME-TAX>                                       358
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (3,114)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,525)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (1,241.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1532

RONALD THOMAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 98-3595)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph L. Gibson, Jr., GIBSON, JONES & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellant. Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Farber, Laurie Snyder, Tax Division, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Thomas appeals from the tax court’s order dismissing

his petition for lack of jurisdiction for failing to file within

the ninety-day period required under 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) (1994).

Our review of the record and the tax court’s opinion discloses no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

tax court. See Thomas v. Commissioner, No. 98-3595 (U.S.T.C. Jan.

22, 1999). 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
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 50747 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **San Juan Barboza**

**- Rodriguez,**  also known as **San Juan Barboza Rodriguez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:17

- CR

- 171

- 1

Before **Jolly, Elrod,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * San Juan Barboza

- Rodriguez appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. He contends that the district court plainly erred by ordering a

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 10, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50747 Document: 00515559272 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2020No. 19

- 50747

2 special condition of supervised release requiring him to undergo mental health treatment. The Government, conceding error, asks us to strike the condition, reform the written judgment , and affirm as modified.
T he district court did not explain how its imposition of the mental health treatment condition was reasonably related to any of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and the court’s reasoning cannot be inferred from the record. See United States v. Alvarez , 880 F.3d 236, 239

- 40 (5th Cir. 2018). We thus conclude that Barboza

- Rodriguez has shown clear or obvious error. See id . at 240

- 41

. Barboza

- Rodriguez has further shown that the error affected his substantial rights because he must pay for the costs of the
t reatment, it may require a significant time commitment, and it creates a possibly unwarranted perception that he requires treatment. See id . at 241. Because of the significant autonomy and privacy concerns, we exercise our discretion to remedy the error. See id. at 242. Accordingly, we **GRANT** the Government’s motion, **MODIFY** the judgment to strike the special condition of release requiring Barboza

Rodriguez to undergo mental health treatment , and **AFFIRM** the judgment as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED AS MOOT** 

. Case: 19-50747 Document: 00515559272 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY
PERIOD ENDED MAY 29, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-29-1999
<CASH>                                           1,566
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,427
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,652)
<INVENTORY>                                     12,715
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,817
<PP&E>                                          49,028
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,992)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 224,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,950
<BONDS>                                        138,938
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   224,347
<SALES>                                        135,186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,186
<CGS>                                           58,290
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                61,746
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   360
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,846
<INCOME-TAX>                                        90
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,756
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,856
<EPS-BASIC>                                       7.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.57


</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     1996 Financial Data Schedule
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001000779
<NAME>                        Consolidated Delivery & Logistics, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                $1.00
<CASH>                                         1,725
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,563
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,705
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,059
<PP&E>                                         12,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          21,587
<BONDS>                                        3,415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       7
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,690
<SALES>                                        171,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,049
<CGS>                                          120,768
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  172,232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               461
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,527)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (844)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (683)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (683)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.10)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 42870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0016]


Meetings To Implement Pandemic Response Voluntary Agreement under 
Section 708 of the Defense Production Act; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Announcement of meetings; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a 
document in the Federal Register of July 2, 2021, concerning an 
announcement of meetings to implement the Voluntary Agreement for the 
Manufacture and Distribution of Critical Healthcare Resources Necessary 
to Respond to a Pandemic. The document incorrectly listed certain 
meeting dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Glenn, Office of Business, 
Industry, Infrastructure Integration, via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b040978020b2d2e262a652f2338652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bff0fd8cf6ffd9dad2de91dbd7cc91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a> or 
via phone at (202) 212-1666.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of July 2, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-14251 on 
page 35309, in the second column, correct the DATES caption to read:

DATES: The schedule for these meetings is as follows:
    <bullet> The first meeting took place on Tuesday, June 22, 2021, 
from 2 to 4 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).
    <bullet> The second meeting took place on Wednesday, June 23, 2021, 
from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET.
    <bullet> The third meeting will take place on Tuesday, July 20, 
2021, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET.
    <bullet> The fourth meeting will take place on Thursday, July 22, 
2021, from 2 to 4 p.m. ET.
    <bullet> The fifth meeting will take place on Tuesday, August 17, 
2021, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET.
    <bullet> The sixth meeting will take place on Thursday, August 19, 
2021, from 2 to 4 p.m. ET.

    Dated: August 2, 2021.
Shabnaum Q. Amjad,
Deputy Associate Chief Counsel, Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of 
Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-16708 Filed 8-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



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 Texas United Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L.
Don Stricklin, President and 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: 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 operating results of the Company. /s/ L. Don StricklinL. Don Stricklin
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6392

MAURO GOROSTIETA HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

B. J. MEEKS, Warden; STEPHEN HOEY; L. SANCHEZ, HIT; N. ROSARIO, RN; 

L. CROSS, HSA; CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, NP; FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

PRISONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00661-MGL)

Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mauro Gorostieta Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mauro Gorostieta Hernandez appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment in Hernandez’s civil action. The district court referred this 

case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate 

judge recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and 

advised Hernandez that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Hernandez 

has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Glen METCALF, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50050

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 16, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bem-porad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. Appellant concedes his arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent; to wit: *United States v. Johnson,*632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir.2011); *United States v. Heth,*596 F.3d 255 (5th Cir.2010); and *United States v. Whaley,*
      *255577 F.3d 254 (5th Cir.2009). Appellant also indicates that he raises the arguments for possible Supreme Court review. The judgment of the district court is SUMMARILY 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.
Case: 1:02-cv-02400 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/03/02 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:16
Case: 1:02-cv-02400 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/03/02 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:17
Case: 1:02-cv-02400 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/03/02 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:18
Case: 1:02-cv-02400 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/03/02 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:19
EXHIBIT 32.1



CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§1350)



The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively, certify that, to the best of their
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary at the dates and for the periods indicated.



The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|             |  |                                                                  
|------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|May 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.                                       
|Date         |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and                            
|             |  | Chief Executive Officer                                          
|             | 
|May 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                                              
|Date         |  | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer