alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6372

JOHN G. WESTINE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN, FMC Butner , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:19

- hc

- 02014

- FL )

Submitted : June 27, 2019 Decided: August 16, 2019

Before DIAZ , FLOYD , and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John G. Westine , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John G. Westine appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for release pending the court’s consideration of Westine’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition

. In his motion, Westine alleged that prison officials were refusing him necessary treatment for a terminal illness. On June 5, 2019, the district court is sued an order offering Westine the opportunity to convert his pending § 2241 action into a Bivens * civil rights action in order to challenge the conditions of his confinement. Westine consented and , on June 24, 2019, the court dismissed Westine’s § 2241 petition without prejudice and recharacterized it as a prisoner civil rights case under Bivens

. Upon review , we conclude that the instant appeal is moot. “The mootness doctrine is a limitation on federal judicial power grounded in the
‘case

- or - contro versy’ requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.” United States v. Springer , 715 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2013); see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “Mootness is a jurisdictional question and thus may be raised sua sponte by a federal
court a t any stage of proceedings.” Springer , 715 F.3d at 540. We lose jurisdiction over any portion of an appeal that becomes moot. Incumaa v. Ozmint , 507 F.3d 281, 285

- 86 (4th Cir. 2007). “ If an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it
i mpossible for the court to grant any effectual relief

. . . to a prevailing party, the appeal
must be dismissed

. . . . ” Id. at 286 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fe deral Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

.3 “ [ A ] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the p arties lack a legally cognizable interest in the [ outcome ] .” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because the district court has ruled on Westine’s § 2241 petition, his request for release or bail pending the district court’s decision is moot. Accordi ngly, w e deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss th is appeal. Our decision, of course, does not impact Westine’s pending appeal regarding the merits of his § 2241 petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contention s are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 1 0

- 1 0 9 5 0 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A
,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.

I V A N R A M O S
,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o

. 3 : 0 9

- C R

- 3 1 8

- 1

B e f o r e J O N E S
, C h i e f J u d g e , a n d S T E W A R T a n d S O U T H W I C K , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. P E R C U R I A M : *

T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t I v a n R a m o s h a s

m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v

. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )
, a n d U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. F l o r e s , 6 3 2 F

. 3 d 2 2 9 ( 5 t h
C i r

. 2 0 1 1 )

. R a m o s h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e r e q u e s t i n g t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f n e w

c o u n s e l

. W e h a v e r e v i e w e d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f a n d t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e

r e c o r d r e f

l e c t e d t h e r e i n , a s w e l l a s R a m o s ’ s r e s p o n s e

. W e c o n c u r w i t h c o u n s e l ’ s

a s s e s s m e n t t h a t t h e a p p e a l p r e s e n t s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 21 , 20 11
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-10950 Document: 00511515157 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2011N o

. 1 0

- 1 0 9 5 0

A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , R a m o s ’ s r e q u e s t f o r n e w c o u n s e l i s
D E N I E D , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 10-10950 Document: 00511515157 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2011
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research PMRU Docs Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management: Outbreak and Survey Info Forecast Maps





- NPARL Home
- PMRU Home
- ASRU Home
- Site Highlights
- Outbreak and Survey Info
- ID Tools | Apps
- Grasshopper Management
- IPM Handbook
- USDA Research | Contact Info

Outbreak Info: Grasshopper Forecast 2012headline bar /ARSUserFiles/30320505/grasshopper/Extras/images/Maps/GH_WR_2012.gif < Previous Map      Back to Outbreak Info      Next Map > The data summarized in this map were furnished by the respective state, county, university and federal agencies using a variety of survey methods and analytical techniques.  Due to funding considerations, states may not have continuous survey coverage. This map was prepared by USDA-APHIS-PPQ in cooperation with CPHST.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D22-2018

LT Case No. 2020-CP-2339

_____________________________

KATHLEEN JOAN DECKER,

Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA A. WILKINSON AND 

THERESA M. HEBERT, COTRUSTEES OF THE MARGARET A.

ATWOOD IRREVOCABLE TRUST 

DATED AUGUST 14, 2020 AND 

DANIEL HICKS AS PERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE, ET AL,

Appellees.

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County. 

Kristie Healis, Judge. 

Dock Blanchard, of Blanchard, Merriam & Adel, P.A., Ocala, 

for Appellant. 

Angela C. Flowers, of Kubicki Draper, Ocala, for Appellees. 

February 13, 2024 

PER CURIAM.
2

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, HARRIS, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FLOYD GADSON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-33-MU, CA-95-438-3-MU) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Floyd Gadson, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Gadson , Nos. CR-93-33-MU; CA-95-438-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 10, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion to remand and 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
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pollinating Insect-Biology, Management, Systematics Research: Logan, UT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Logan, Utah Pollinating Insect-Biology, Management, Systematics Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications
- Bee Lab Main
- Bee Mail Shelter
- Bumble Bee Rearing Guide
- Blue Orchard Bee - Fact Sheet
- Blue Orchard Bee Rearing Guide
- Build a Nesting Block
- Gardening & Landscaping Practices for Nesting Native Bees
- Gardening for Native Bees in N. America
- Hang Tags for Flowers
- Ozone to Decontaminate Honey Bee Supers
- Pollen Traps
- Reed Nests
- Stick Nests
- Alfalfa Leafcutting Bee (ALCB)
- Blue Orchard Bee
- Bumble Bee
- Bumble Bee Utah Quickguide
- Bumble Bees of the Pacific Northwest
- Monitoring Bumble Bees in the Pacific Northwest
- Bumble Bees Western U.S. Guide
- U.S. National Pollinating Insects Collection
- What are Bees?
- Pollinator Of The Month
- Bee Lab Main

Collaborations The Pollinating Insect-Biology, Management, Systematics Research has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 3

- 1349

_____________________________
F LOYD S PIVEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Shonna Young Gay , Judge

. May 31, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
K ELSEY , W INOKUR , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Floyd Spivey , pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox , Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

March 21, 2023

Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit

95 Seventh Street

San Francisco, CA 94103-1526

Re: ViSalus, Inc.

v. Lori Wakefield, Individually and on Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated

No. 22-920

(Your No. 21-35201)

Dear Clerk:

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on 

March 17, 2023 and placed on the docket March 21, 2023 as No. 22-920. 

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

by

Jacob A. Levitan

Case Analyst

 

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 444 Filed 03/22/23 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gabriel ROMERO-VIERA, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gabriel Romero-Viera, Defendant—Appellant.

Nos. 06-10418, 06-10426.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

Liz Barrick, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip E. Hantel, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gabriel Romero-Viera appeals from his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also appeals from the district court’s order revoking supervised release and the resultant sentence.

Romero-Viera contends that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He claims that he did not understand the terms of his plea and was confused, but the record belies this claim. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the defendant had not shown a fair and just reason for withdrawing the plea. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2); *United States v. Rios-Ortiz,*830 F.2d 1067, 1069 (9th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.01

                           CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   1996         1997          1998         1999         2000
                                                                ---------    ---------     ---------     --------     --------
<S>                                                             <C>          <C>           <C>           <C>          <C>
EARNINGS:
Income from continuing operations before income taxes,
  minority interest, reversal of loss on discontinued
  operations and cumulative effect of accounting
  changes ..................................................    $  95,230    $  83,388     $  83,018     $ 64,641     $ 13,788
Equity in income of less-than-50-percent-owned
  entities .................................................         (104)         (40)           12            0            0
Fixed charges ..............................................       12,865       16,536        19,469       30,528       42,513
Less capitalized interest expense ..........................           --           --          (219)        (626)        (852)
                                                                ---------    ---------     ---------     --------     --------
Earnings ...................................................    $ 107,991    $  99,884     $ 102,280     $ 94,543     $ 55,449
                                                                =========    =========     =========     ========     ========
FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense ...........................................    $  10,698    $  14,111     $  16,072     $ 25,735     $ 36,467
Amortization of debt issuance costs ........................          348           --            --          142          737
Estimate of the interest cost within rental expense ........        1,819        2,425         3,178        4,025        4,457
Capitalized interest expense ...............................           --           --           219          626          852
                                                                ---------    ---------     ---------     --------     --------
Fixed charges ..............................................    $  12,865    $  16,536     $  19,469     $ 30,528     $ 42,513
                                                                =========    =========     =========     ========     ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .........................         8.39         6.04          5.25         3.10         1.30
                                                                =========    =========     =========     ========     ========
</TABLE>


                                       46
Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 

E-mai I: .skraerner(Zi)cisoregon.org 

Leslie A. Edenhofcr, OSB No. 093380 

E-mail: ledenhofer@cisoregon.org 

KRAEMER & EDENHOFER 

P.O. Box 1469 

Lake Oswego, OR 97035 

Telephone: (800) 922-2684 

Facsimile: (503) 763-3939 

Of Attorneys for Defendant B.H. Durrant 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

PATRICK BRIAN TOWNSEND, 

Plaintift~ 

v. 

KA THERINE KAY ELLIS, CLIFF ELLIS 

and B.H. DURANT, 

Durrant. 

No. 6: 15-cv-01958-TC 

STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF 

DISMISSAL AS TO B.H. DURRANT 

ONLY 

IT IS STIPULATED between the parties that all claims alleged in this case against 

Defendant B.H. Durrant only be dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney fees to 

either party. 

DATED: ~ - 'f - I b Cl~410 DATED: f5. 11..·- I~ 

Steven ----- A. Kraemer, -------- OSB No. 882476 

Of Attorneys for Defendant B. H. Durrant 

Page 1 - STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL AS 

TO B.H. DURRANT ONLY 

KRAE.\IER & ElJE.'iHOFER 

Not a Partnership 

Employees of CIS (Cilycounly Insurance Services) 

P.O. Box 146'1 

Luke Oswego, OR 970J!i 

Telephone: (800) 922-2684 

Fucsimilc: (503) 763-3939 

Case 6:15-cv-01958-TC Document 14 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 2
Based upon the parties' stipulation, it is hereby: 

ADJUDGED that all claims alleged in this case against Defendant B.H. Durrant only are 

dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney fees to either party. 

DATED this _jQ_ day of Avie, , 2016. 

Page 2-STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL AS 

TO B.H. DURRANT ONLY 

KRAEMER & EDENHOFER 

Not n Pnrtucrship 

Employees of CJS (Citycounty Insurn11ce Services) 

P.O. Box 1469 

Lnl<c Oswego, OR 97035 

Telephone: (800) 922-2684 

Fncsimilc: (503) 763-3939 

Case 6:15-cv-01958-TC Document 14 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 2