alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne ODOM, a/k/a Kenny, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 05-4414.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 14, 2006.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2006.

Henry M. Anderson, Jr., Anderson Law Firm, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Wayne Odom appeals his conviction and 120-month sentence pursuant to his guilty pleas to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute mar*320ijuana and five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) (2000), and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000).

Counsel for Odom has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but presenting one issue for our review. Counsel suggests the district court erred in denying Odom’s motion for a downward departure due to Odom’s extraordinary physical condition. *See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 5H1.4 (2003).

A district court’s decision not to depart from the sentencing guidelines is not subject to appellate review unless the refusal to depart is based on the mistaken belief that the court lacked jurisdiction to depart. *United States v. Quinn,*359 F.3d 666, 682 (4th Cir.2004) (citing *United States v. Bayerle,*898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir.1990)); *see also United States v. Cooper,*437 F.3d 324, 333 (3d Cir.2006) (collecting cases adopting this rule after *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). Here, the district court recognized its authority to depart but found, under the circumstances of Odom’s case, that departure was not warranted. Thus, this claim is not subject to appellate review. *Quinn,*359 F.3d at 682.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Odom’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but his counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service 

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior, lead; National Park Service, Interior, cooperating; Michigan Department of Natural Resources, cooperating. 

# ACTION:

Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; extension of comment period. 

# SUMMARY:

This document announces an extension of the comment period for an additional 30 days to allow further participation in the scoping process. 

                        For additional information, the original announcement regarding the notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on May 16, 2001, beginning on page 27154. Copies of the document can be obtained by contacting the individuals listed in the original announcement.                     

The notice of intent and supplementary information can also be viewed via the internet at http://midwest.fws.gov/​nepa

# DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before COB July 15, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For the various agencies, the contacts are: Mr. Craig A. Czarnecki, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing Field Office, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI 48823, telephone: (517) 351-8470, facsimile: (517) 351-1443; or Mr. Jon Parker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid, Bishop Henry Whipple Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111; telephone: (612) 713-5142, facsimile: (612) 713-5290; Ms. Elyse LaForest, National Park Service, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, telephone: (617) 223-5190, facsimile: (617) 223-5164; Mr. Doug Erickson, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, P.O. Box 30444, Lansing, MI 48909-7944; telephone: (517) 335-4316, facsimile: (517) 373-6705. 

William F. Hartwig, 

Regional Director, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 

[FR Doc. 01-15278 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Joseph DEE, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 16-6524.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
MOHAMMED ABDALLAH OMRAN, petitioner, v. Michael GUNNISON, et al.

No. 16-5889.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from NS Group, Inc.'s consolidated financial statements as of and
for the fiscal year ended September 26, 1998, included in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000745026
<NAME> NS GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,783
<SECURITIES>                                    64,689
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                       752
<INVENTORY>                                     65,462
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,582
<PP&E>                                         306,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 171,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 418,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,591
<BONDS>                                         76,325
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       264,792
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   418,208
<SALES>                                        409,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               409,855
<CGS>                                          370,612
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  370,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,151
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,604
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,547
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    659
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,206
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
Kim JONES, Individually and as Executrix of the Estates of Tracy Jones, and Bryan Jones, Deceased, petitioner, v. SANDUSKY COUNTY, OHIO, et al.

No. 16-566.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         351,482
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,469,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                   499,470
<INVENTORY>                                    179,236
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,682,114
<PP&E>                                       9,899,440
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,556,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,051,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,381,112
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           227
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,053,410
<OTHER-SE>                                   (734,603)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,051,626
<SALES>                                      7,978,751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        5,153,481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,725,327
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,373,181
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               198,665
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             613,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,102,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,102,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,102,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (1)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (1)
        

</TABLE>
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 24

- 12685

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
MARK T. STINSON, SR.,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus JOHN T FOWLKES, Federal Judge, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Memphis, TN,

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-12685 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2024 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 24

- 12685
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24

- cv

- 22833

- DMM

____________________
Before W ILSON , N EWSOM , and L UCK , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte , for lack of jurisdiction. Mark Stinson appeals from the district court’s order transferring his case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because transfer orders under § 1406(a) are non

- appealable interlocutory orders. See Middlebrooks v. Smith , 735 F.2d 431, 432 (11th Cir. 1984); Stelly v. Emps. Nat’l Ins. Co. , 431 F.2d 1251, 1253

- 54 (5th Cir. 1970). All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40

- 3 and all other applicable rules. USCA11 Case: 24-12685 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2024 Page: 2 of 2
RICHARD MOONEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4165

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 13, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Adrian G. Soud, Judge.

Richard Mooney, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000852220
<NAME> ALLSTATE FINANCIAL CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         2132825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 18468344
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3211000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              25927130
<PP&E>                                         1201943
<DEPRECIATION>                                  701616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                29886766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1788029
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         40000
<OTHER-SE>                                    23017532
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  29886766
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4814219
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2668255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                675790
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              627327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 842847
<INCOME-TAX>                                    311852
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             530995
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    530995
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        


</TABLE>
# ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

May 17, 2024 CR-2023-0866 Enrico Morris Cornley v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court: CC-14-787.61) 

## NOTICE You are hereby notified that on May 17, 2024, the following action was taken in the above-reference cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals: Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21

- 0168 KATIE MARIE THORNTON,

Petit io ner and Appellee,

v. GREGORY STEVEN BALLARD,

Respondent and Appellant. SECOND ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMEN T

M arc G. B uyske , th e mediator previously appo int ed in this matter, has notified the Court that he declines th e appo int me nt
. Accordingly, Mr. B uyske ’s order of m ediator ap point me ntis hereby rescinded and IT IS ORDERED THAT **David L. Nielsen**  **, 1170 Mendocino D**  **r. Helena MT 59601 ,**  **nielsen48@hotmail.com** whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appoint me nt as mediators fo r Domest ic Relat io n appeals which is m aintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appo int ed to c onduct th e med iat io n process requi red by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt. A true co py of

thi s order is being mail ed to c ounsel of r eco rd fo r the parti es, or to the parti es individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s 17 th day

of May , 20 21

.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court

c : Bri an James Miller, P.O. Bo9x 557, Helena, M T 59624, bmiller@mswdlaw.co m Robyn L. Weber, 221 5th Avenue, Helena, MT 59601, robyn@weberlawhelena.co m David L. Nielsen , s e e a d dr e s s ab o v e 05/17/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0168
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6599
GARY LEWIS MILLER-EL, Islam M.A. Muhammed Gary L. Johnson, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BOYD BENNETT; MS. BRANCH; B. A. HOFFNER; S. WALKER; M. C. NORNS, Sergeant; NURSE ALLEN, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-905-5-FO) Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 16, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Lewis Miller-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gary Lewis Miller-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) for failure to particularize his claims. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
EXHIBIT 31.5





CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 350)








I, Marc W. Booth, certify that:


|   |                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Acacia Research Corporation; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;







Dated:April 30, 2019/s/ Marc W. BoothMarc W. BoothChief Intellectual Property Officer
#### Jerald Jerome DORSEY, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rebecca TAMEZ; United States of America, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 11-10526

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 29, 2012.

Jerald Jerome Dorsey, FCI, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jerald Jerome Dorsey appeals the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 180-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Dorsey argued that he was actually innocent of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act in light of *Begay v. United States,*553 U.S. 137, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008).

As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence must file a § 2255 motion. *Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.2005). Such claims may be raised in a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) only if the prisoner shows that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e).

Dorsey has not made such a showing because he has not established that his claims are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001). Moreover, a claim of actual innocence of a career offender enhancement is not a claim of actual innocence of the crime of conviction and, thus, not the type of claim that warrants review under § 2241. *See Kinder v. Purdy,*222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th *373Cir.2000); *see also Padilla,*416 F.3d at 426-27. Dorsey has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the savings clause of § 2255(e).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the motion for extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, 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.
Emilio VILLALOBOS-ALCALA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6978.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Susan FLANDER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-618.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.