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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1568

To provide for the rescheduling of flunitrazepam into schedule I of the

Controlled Substances Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Mr. BIDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for the rescheduling of flunitrazepam into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, 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. RESCHEDULING.

4 Notwithstanding sections 201 and 202 (a) and (b)

5 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811, 812 (a),

6 (b)) respecting the scheduling of controlled substances, the

7 Attorney General shall, by order, transfer flunitrazepam

8 from schedule IV of such Act to schedule I of such Act.

Æ
#### Andrea J. MAGWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne WHITWORTH, in his individual capacity; Kelle Spears, Defendants-Appellees, and Heritage Trust Federal Credit Union; Family Assistance Management Services; Toni Melendez, Defendants.

No. 11-1241.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 29, 2011.

Andrea J. Magwood, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, Senn, McDonald & Leinback, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Andrea J. Magwood appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Magwood v. Whitworth,*No. 2:09-cv-02751-RMG, 2011 WL 692205 (D.S.C. Feb. 18, 2011). 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 BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In re: 

NICOLE MARIE BOBAR

SCOTT GERARD BOBOR

Debtor(s)

Case No. 10-01055

CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE’S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT

Glenn Stearns, chapter 13 trustee, submits the following Final Report and Account of the 

administration of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1302(b)(1). The trustee declares as follows:

1) The case was filed on 01/13/2010.

2) The plan was confirmed on NA .

3) The plan was modified by order after confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329 on

 NA .

4) The trustee filed action to remedy default by the debtor in performance under the plan 

on NA .

5) The case was dismissed on 02/19/2010.

6) Number of months from filing to last payment: 0.

7) Number of months case was pending: 3.

8) Total value of assets abandoned by court order: NA .

9) Total value of assets exempted: NA .

10) Amount of unsecured claims discharged without payment: $0.00.

11) All checks distributed by the trustee relating to this case have cleared the bank.

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 10-01055 Doc 14 Filed 04/22/10 Entered 04/22/10 10:12:32 Desc Page 1

 of 3
Receipts:

Total paid by or on behalf of the debtor $0.00

Less amount refunded to debtor $0.00

NET RECEIPTS: $0.00

Expenses of Administration:

Attorney’s Fees Paid Through the Plan $0.00

Court Costs $0.00

Trustee Expenses & Compensation $0.00

Other $0.00

TOTAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION: $0.00

Attorney fees paid and disclosed by debtor: $0.00

Scheduled Creditors:

Creditor

Name Class

Claim

Scheduled

Claim

Asserted

Claim

Allowed

Int.

Paid

Principal

Paid

Summary of Disbursements to Creditors:

Secured Payments:

Mortgage Ongoing

Mortgage Arrearage

Debt Secured by Vehicle

All Other Secured

TOTAL SECURED:

Priority Unsecured Payments:

Domestic Support Arrearage

Domestic Support Ongoing

All Other Priority

TOTAL PRIORITY:

GENERAL UNSECURED PAYMENTS:

Claim

Allowed

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Principal

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Interest

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 10-01055 Doc 14 Filed 04/22/10 Entered 04/22/10 10:12:32 Desc Page 2

 of 3
Disbursements:

Expenses of Administration $0.00

Disbursements to Creditors $0.00

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS : $0.00

12) The trustee certifies that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5009, 

the estate has been fully administered, the foregoing summary is true and complete, and all 

administrative matters for which the trustee is responsible have been completed. The trustee 

requests a final decree be entered that discharges the trustee and grants such other relief as may 

be just and proper.

Dated: 04/22/2010

STATEMENT: This Unified Form is associated with an open bankruptcy case, therefore, Paperwork Reduction 

Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.

By: /s/ Glenn Stearns

Trustee

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 10-01055 Doc 14 Filed 04/22/10 Entered 04/22/10 10:12:32 Desc Page 3

 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DSI TOYS,
INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      276,146
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             3,352,068
<ALLOWANCES>                             (2,204,319)
<INVENTORY>                               5,583,351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          9,634,877
<PP&E>                                    7,923,234
<DEPRECIATION>                           (5,190,991)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           24,299,971
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     7,066,810
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     90,664
<OTHER-SE>                                7,410,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             24,299,971
<SALES>                                   6,914,462
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          6,914,462
<CGS>                                     5,309,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             3,340,630
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (10,191)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            (35,354)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          269,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (2,005,451)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (718,347)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (1,276,913)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             (1,276,913)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.14)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edith MOSQUERA DE FLORES, also known as Edith Mosquera-Valencia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-51134

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 9, 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 HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Edith Mosquera De Flores (Mosquera) appeals her sentences following her convictions on one count of illegal reentry into the United States, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and one count of false personation in immigration matters, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546. The district court sentenced her within her advisory guidelines range to concurrent terms of 48 months of imprisonment and three years of nonre-porting supervised release for each count. Mosquera contends that her sentences are substantively unreasonable. She does not challenge her sentences for procedural error.

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Mosquera contends that her punishment was too severe because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 effectively double counts the defendant’s criminal record in establishing the guidelines range. She further contends that her sentences overstated the seriousness of her illegal reentry offense and failed to properly reflect her personal history and characteristics. “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” *United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.2008). Mosquera’s sentences are presumed reasonable because they fell within her guidelines range, *see United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th *34Cir.2008), and she has not shown sufficient reason for this court to disturb that presumption.

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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sulaiman Barry, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 748] —

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eileen Koretz, J.H.O.), rendered January 12, 2010, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

*559The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The fact that the court acquitted defendant of other charges does not warrant a different conclusion *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The absence of a translation of certain tape recordings was satisfactorily explained and does not warrant an adverse inference against the People. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
# Official Journal L 191/18 J

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 191 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5118 July 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 191

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5118 July 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (Recast)
   (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

DIRECTIVES

*

Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (Recast)
   (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nisean Graves, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 593]—

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), rendered November 30, 2010, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for a hearing on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, for which the defendant shall be appointed new counsel, and for a new determination of the motion thereafter, and the appeal is held in abeyance pending receipt of the County Court’s report. The County Court, Westchester County, shall file its report will all convenient speed.

At sentencing, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty, contending that his assigned counsel failed to adequately represent him. In light of the defendant’s motion, assigned counsel informed the County Court that she felt uncomfortable representing the defendant at sentencing. In addition, assigned counsel stated that she could not set forth any legal ground for the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s right to counsel was *1035adversely affected when his attorney took a position adverse to him (see *People v Fully,*90 AD3d 1071 [2011]; *People v Vega,*88 AD3d 1022 [2011]; *People v Dixon,*63 AD3d 957 [2009]). The County Court should have assigned a different attorney to represent the defendant before it determined the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see *People v Vega,*88 AD3d at 1022-1023; *People v Dixon,*63 AD3d at 957). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for a hearing on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, for which the defendant shall be appointed new counsel, and for a new determination of the motion thereafter. We hold the appeal in abeyance pending receipt of the County Court’s report. We express no opinion as to the merits of the defendant’s motion, and we decide no other issues at this time. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1311

FRANCIS AKINRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA MAHER, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; GEORGE BUSH, President of the United States of America, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA02-555-CCB) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis Akinro, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Francis Akinro, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of the district court. See Akinro v. Maher , No. CA-02- 555-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 4, 2002). We deny Akinro’s motion for default judgment. We also deny Akinro’s motion for 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
Order filed, September 29, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00586-CV

____________

JOAQUIN SAUCEDA, Appellant

V.

MICHAEL HESS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-12416

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 02, 2016. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Michelle Tucker, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Jeffrey I. Dreben, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of CVF Technologies Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fiscal fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: August 14, 2007              /s/ Jeffrey I. Dreben   Jeffrey I. Dreben,   Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10


EXHIBIT 10.65




Description of Oral Extension-North Atlantic Promissory Note




Summary of Terms of the Orally Agreed upon Extension to following Simple Promissory Note (with corresponding exhibit number of original note) under which Registrant is the Borrower. No periodic payments are required and principal and interest are due on the extended due date.







	Original

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Note

	 
	 
	Original

	Oral

	 
	Annual


	Exhibit

	 
	Loan

	Due

	Extension

	 
	%


	Number

	Lender

	Date

	Date

	Date

	Principal

	Rate


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	10.44

	North Atlantic

	06/01/2008

	09/01/2008

	12/31/2008

	$100,000.00

	10%
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lionel SISK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6714.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 30, 2011.

Robert Lionel Sisk, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lionel Sisk seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 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.

In his informal brief, Sisk has failed to address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his motion. Therefore, Sisk has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s rulings. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Sisk’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to estab*679lish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to eases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). Sisk’s claim does not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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.*