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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6123

MICHAEL S. GORBEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-6611

MICHAEL S. GORBEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:12-cv-00667-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 4, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
2

No. 14-6123 dismissed; No. 14-6611 affirmed by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Michael S. Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In Case No. 14-6123, Michael S. Gorbey seeks to appeal 

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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 petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Gorbey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Gorbey’s pending motions, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
4

In Case No. 14-6611, Gorbey seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of 

the order dismissing his § 2254 petition. Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm the district court’s order. 

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.

No. 14-6123 DISMISSED

No. 14-6611 AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7890

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ROCHELLE LUCAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (CA-05-293-5)

Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 22, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Rochelle Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Sue C.

Beasley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Rochelle Lucas, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States v. Lucas, No. CA-05-293-5

(E.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2005). 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 of America, Appellee, v. Alie Manuel Dejesus ELLIOT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-4939.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 5, 2006.

Timothy Austin, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Molly Corbett, on the brief), New York, NY, for Appellant.

Glenn T. Suddaby, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York *90(Brenda K. Sannes, Edward P. Grogan, Assistants United States Attorneys, of counsel), New York, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, and J. GARVAN MURTHA,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

The defendant, Alie Manuel Dejesus Elliot, appeals his sentence of forty-six month’s imprisonment following a judgment of conviction for illegal reentry after being convicted of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and § 1326(b)(2). On appeal, Elliot argues that § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional, and that the 16-level sentence enhancement for his prior conviction violated the Sixth Amendment because it affected his sentence but was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We assume that the parties and counsel are familiar with the facts and the procedural history of this case, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

Elliot first argues that the Sixth Amendment guarantees him the right to have his past aggravated felony conviction under § 1362(b)(2) proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 239-46, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See United States v. Estrada,*428 F.3d 387, 391 (2d Cir.2005) (“While we acknowledge a tension between the spirit of *Booker*— that all facts that fix mandatorily a defendant’s sentence should be found by a jury or admitted by the defendant — and the Supreme Court’s decision in *Almendarez-Torres,*the ‘prior conviction’ exception nonetheless remains the law.”).

Elliot next argues that the sixteen-level sentence enhancement he received on the ground that his prior conviction was for drug-trafficking, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(a)(i), violates the Sixth Amendment, because it increased his sentence and yet was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. But district courts may find facts for the purposes of calculating Guideline sentences without running afoul of the Fifth or Sixth Amendment “as long as those facts do not increase the penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum sentence or trigger a mandatory minimum sentence that simultaneously raises a corresponding maximum.” *U.S. v. Sheikh,*433 F.3d 905, 905-06 (2d Cir.2006). Because the sixteen-level enhancement only brought Elliot’s sentence to forty-six months — well below the twenty-year legislative maximum of § 1326(b)(2) — the district court’s enhancement did not violate Elliot’s Sixth Amendment rights.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 13.1
 Certification of the Principal Executive Officer of
Quebecor Media Inc.
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/
Pierre Karl PéladeauName:
    Pierre Karl PéladeauTitle:
    Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edy Guilmar CHILEL-SOTO, also known as Edy Chilel Soto-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-40188

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 15, 2013.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Edy Guilmar Chilel-Soto raises an argument that he correctly concedes is foreclosed by *United States v. Rodriguez,*711 F.3d 541, 562 n. 28 (5th Cir.2013) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(June 6, 2013) (No. 12-10695), in which this court con-*489eluded that the generic, contemporary definitions of “statutory rape” and “sexual abuse of a minor” do not include the age-differential requirement that Chilel-Soto asserts is required. The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
Filed 11/3/15 P. v. Lars CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARCUS D. LARS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B262153

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. NA081578)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James 

Otto, Judge. Affirmed.

Janet Uson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

In 2009, Marcus Lars, who has a significant criminal record, was convicted of two 

counts of transport and sale of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety 

Code section 11352, his second “strike” under Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision 

(c)(1).

1

 He was sentenced to a determinate prison term of 11 years. 

In 2014, Lars petitioned for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 36, the Three 

Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (§ 1170.126), and Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods 

and Schools Act (§ 1170.18). The trial court denied the petition, and Lars appealed. 

We appointed counsel to represent Lars on appeal, but after examination of the 

record counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the 

record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On June 4, 

2015, we informed Lars he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us 

to consider. We also directed his appointed counsel to send the record and opening brief 

to him immediately. We received no response.

Resentencing under Proposition 36 is unavailable to any “person who is presently 

serving a term of imprisonment for a ‘second strike’ conviction imposed pursuant to . . . 

paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (c).) 

Resentencing under Proposition 47 is unavailable to a person convicted of violating 

Health and Safety Code section 11352. (See § 1170.18, subd. (a).) Lars is serving a 

determinate sentence for a second strike conviction pursuant to section 1170.12, 

subdivision (c)(1), for violating Health and Safety Code section 11352. He is therefore 

ineligible for resentencing under either proposition.

We have otherwise examined the entire record and conclude Lars’s counsel 

complied with the responsibilities set forth in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and 

People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. No arguable issues exist.

 1

Undesignated statutory references will be to the Penal Code.
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CHANEY, Acting P. J.

We concur:

JOHNSON, J.

LUI, J.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 26, 2014

NO. 03-13-00745-CV

Richard L. Spradley, Appellant

v.

Delia Spradley, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on November 7, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the district court’s order. Therefore, the Court reverses the district court’s order and remands the 

case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The appellee shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28532-28533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12920]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research 
Committee.
    Date: June 14, 2001.
    Open: 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.
    Agenda: Reports from various institute staff.
    Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Closed: 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Gary S. Madonna, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIAID, NIH Room 2217, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7610, 301-496-2550.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology,

[[Page 28533]]

and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious 
Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS


    Dated: May 15, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-12920 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28754-28755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13139]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Advisory Commission; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of June 2001.
    Name: Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV)
    Date and Time: June 7, 2001; 10 a.m.-12 p.m.
    Place: Audio Conference Call
    The full Commission will meet on Thursday, June 7, from 10 a.m. to 
12 p.m. (eastern standard time) via audio conference call. The meeting 
is open to the public. The public can join the conference call by 
calling 1-877-709-

[[Page 28755]]

5340 and providing the following information:
    Leader's name: Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
    Password: ACCV
    The agenda includes a briefing on the Institute of Medicine's 
Immunization Safety Review Committee Report on Measles-Mumps-Rubella 
Vaccine and Autism. Public comment will be permitted at the end of the 
presentation. Oral comments will be limited to 5 minutes per public 
speaker. Persons interested in providing an oral presentation should 
submit a written request, along with a copy of their presentation to: 
Ms. Cheryl Lee, Principal Staff Liaison, Division of Vaccine Injury 
Compensation, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and 
Services Administration, Room 8A-46, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20857, Telephone (301) 443-2124. Requests should contain the name, 
address, telephone number, and any business or professional affiliation 
of the person desiring to make an oral presentation. Groups having 
similar interests are requested to combine their comments and present 
them through a single representative. The allocation of time may be 
adjusted to accommodate the level of expressed interest. The Division 
of Vaccine Injury Compensation will notify each presenter by mail or 
telephone of their assigned presentation time.
    Persons who do not file an advance request for a presentation, but 
desire to make an oral statement, may do so at the end of the 
presentation. If time is available, these persons will be allocated 
time to make oral statements.
    Anyone requiring information regarding the Commission should 
contact Ms. Cheryl Lee, Principal Staff Liaison, Division of Vaccine 
Injury Compensation, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and 
Services Administration, Room 8A-46, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, 
Maryland 20857, Telephone (301) 443-2124.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Dated: May 18, 2001.
Jane M. Harrison,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. 01-13139 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael ROLON-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10342.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 13, 2010.

Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., Camille W. Damm, Assistant U.S., Robert Law*303rence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kirk Kennedy, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant>-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *303*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rafael Rolon-Ramos appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rolon-Ramos contends his guilty plea is invalid because the district court did not properly advise him at the Rule 11 hearing regarding the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The record does not reflect that the district court erred. Moreover, any alleged error did not affect his substantial rights because Rolon-Ramos has failed to show “a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” *United States v. Dominguez Benitez,*542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

No. 03-14-00737-cv

_____________________________________

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

_____________________________________

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, APPELLANT v. ELEANOR KITZMAN IN

HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE,

JULIA RATHGEBER IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

INSURANCE, APPELLEES

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING MOTION FOR REVIEW OF

TRIAL COURT’S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2015, SUSTAINING

CONTEST TO MOTION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

From Cause D-1-GN-13001957 In The 250th District Travis

County, Texas, The Honorable John K. Dietz Presiding

Chase Carmen Hunter, pro se

340 S. Lemon Ave. #9039

Walnut, CA 91789

Telephone: 707-706-3647

Facsimile: 703-997-5999

Chase_Hunter@yahoo.com

ACCEPTED

03-14-00737-CV

4322613

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

3/1/2015 2:30:33 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/2/2015 12:00:00 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
- 2 -

CERTIFICATION.

I, Chase Carmen Hunter, state under penalty of perjury

that the following facts and argument are true and

correct.

March 1, 2015

TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 10.5(b)(1)(A)

Deadline: 10 days from February 19, 2015, which is

March 2, 2015

TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 10.5(b)(1)(B)

LENGTH OF EXTENSION: 60 DAYS

TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 10.5(b)(1)(C)

Facts: The Appellant is indigent. The Appellant is

unable to pay a lawyer and is acting pro se. The

issues are complicated and involve issues of extrinsic

fraud, jurisdiction, gross errors, violations of the

United States Constitution, violations of state and

federal laws, violations of the Appellants civil rights

and human rights, and much more. For these reasons,

care must be taken in filing a motion for review; and
- 3 -

the Appellant needs time to prepare said motion for

review.

TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 10.5(b)(1)(D)

No previous extensions have been granted.

WHEREFORE, the Appellant requests that this motion for

an extension be granted.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Chase Carmen Hunter

Chase Carmen Hunter

Appellant, pro se

340 S. Walnut Ave. #9039

Walnut, CA 91789

Tel: 707-706-3647, Fax: 703-997-5999

Email: Chase_Hunter@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATION

I, Chase Carmen Hunter, swear under penalty of perjury

that the foregoing statements are true and correct.

__________________ 3/1/2015

Chase Carmen Hunter

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TEX R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5)

I, Chase Carmen Hunter, certify that I did attempt to

get the Appellees’ agreement for an extension as

described herein. I contacted Cynthia Morales, counsel

for the Appellees, by email on the morning of February

27, 2015, to discuss the issues described herein prior

to filing this motion; and I received no response from

Ms. Morales.
- 4 -

__________________ 3/1/2015

Chase Carmen Hunter

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Motion was served upon the parties shown

below as indicated:

Cynthia A. Morales

Assistant Attorney General

By Email on March 1, 2015 at

Cynthia.Morales@texasattorneygeneral.gov

Chase Carmen Hunter