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

**No. 12**  **- 6230** 

LEROY STATON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 00745

- TMC )

Submitted : May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Leroy Staton, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorneys General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpu blished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Leroy Staton seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as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 (2006) petition. The orde r is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (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. Sl ack 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 tha t 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 Staton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of app ealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional proces s. DISMISSED
EAGLE COVE CAMP & CONFERENCE CENTER, INC., et al., petitioners, v. TOWN OF WOODBORO, WISCONSIN, et al.

No. 16-1444.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

AstroFXMinners, 

Respondent. 

CFTC Docket No. 

COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(d) OF THE 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("Commission") has received 

information from its staff that tends to show, and the Commission's Division of Enforcement 

("Division") alleges that: 

I. 

SUMMARY 

1. From at least August 2023 and through the present (the "relevant time"),

AstroFXMinners, aka AstroFXMiners, ("Respondent"), has operated a website with a URL 

address of astrofxminners.com (the "website"). On the website, Respondent offers a variety of 

services to its customers in connection with trading a variety of products including futures, 

options, forex, and digital assets that are commodities in interstate commerce ("digital assets") 

like Bitcoin. Respondent further advertises that it is a registered FCM and RFED and a member 

of the National Futures Association ("NFA"), and provides an NFA ID number, thus attempting 

to create a false perception of legitimacy in connection with soliciting customers. However, in 

truth, Respondent is not a registered FCM or RFED nor has it been assigned the stated NF A ID 

number. Thus, Respondent has violated and is violating Section 6(c)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 9(1), and Commission Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.l(a)(l)-(3) (2022).

23-49
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,924
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,924
<PP&E>                                         178,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (50,872)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,419
<BONDS>                                        142,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,990
<OTHER-SE>                                   (135,757)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,052
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,170
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               100,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,680
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (109,385)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (109,385)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (109,385)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.037)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.037)


</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3635 

To repeal the debt ceiling. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2019 

Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To repeal the debt ceiling. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DEBT CEILING. 

4 Sections 3101 and 3101A of title 31, United States 

5 Code, are hereby repealed. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
William A. COYLE, petitioner, v. Cynthia A. JACKSON, et al.

No. 17-7654.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Supreme Raheem ACKBAR, petitioner, v. Lieutenant McPHERSON, et al.

No. 17-5507.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, D.C. KING, S.A. DOMINGUEZ

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL J. HERZOG

PRIVATE (E-1), U.S. MARINE CORPS 

NMCCA 201400204

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 29 January 2014.

Military Judge: Col M.B. Richardson, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Headquarters 

Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Maj V.G. Laratta, 

USMC.

For Appellant: CDR Sabatino F. Leo, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

28 August 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
In Re Taryn CHRISTIAN, petitioner.

No. 17-6613.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2009180EN.01006002.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/60

---

Action brought on 3 June 2009 — ERGO Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle (ERGO Group)

(Case T-221/09)

2009/C 180/111

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ERGO Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T.Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle SAS (Chenôve, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in Case R 520/2008-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in Case R 520/2008-4; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ERGO’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 5 (Application No 3 296 449)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle SAS

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘URGO’ (Community trade mark No 989 863) for goods an services in Classes 3 and 5

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial acceptance of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)) in as much as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 

### 133270 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

### Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133270 COA: 274454 Genesee CC: 06-018283-FH PAMELA GERETTE LONG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 9, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0618 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41516

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN LEWIS,

also known as L.A.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:97-CR-19-1)

August 12, 1998

Before JOHNSON, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Allen Lewis challenges the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to

distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(A). Specifically, he argues that the district court erred

(1)in calculating the amount of cocaine base attributable to him

for sentencing purposes and (2)in refusing to make a downward

departure.

First, Lewis contends that the 137.3 grams of cocaine base

attributed to him in the presentence report (“PSR”) included the
2

weight of baking soda which ought to have been excluded as waste.

The amount of drugs involved in an offense is a factual

determination reviewed for clear error. See United States v.

Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S.

1198 (1994). Lewis failed to present any evidence at sentencing

that the amount of cocaine base attributed to him in the PSR

contained any determinable quantity of baking soda. The district

court did not clearly err in adopting the undisputed findings of

the PSR with respect to the drug quantity. See Fed. R. Crim. P.

32(b)(6)(D). 

Because Lewis did not demonstrate clear error in connection

with this finding and failed to demonstrate that the cocaine base

contained baking soda, we need not reach the merits of his argument

that baking soda is an excludable waste product under the

sentencing guidelines.

Second, Lewis argues that the district court erred in failing

to grant a downward departure based on the disparity between the

penalties for crack and powder cocaine. This argument is

foreclosed by the law of this circuit. See United States v.

Thomas, 120 F.3d 564, 575 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct.

721 (1998); United States v. Fonts, 95 F.3d 372, 374-75 (5th Cir.

1996).

Lewis’ appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore

frivolous. Because it is frivolous, it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R.

42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
In Re Carlton Michael GARY, petitioner.

No. 17-8130 (17A994).

Supreme Court of the United States

March 15, 2018.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice THOMAS and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
II-00525

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dolores Mauloff <d.mauloff@gmail. corn>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:38 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Dolores Mauloff

6842 W. Higgins Avenue

Chicago, IL 60656
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Global Markets Advisory Committee Meeting

May 19, 2020 

AGENDA

10:00 AM 

Welcome and Opening Remarks

• Commissioner Dawn D. Stump (GMAC Sponsor) 

• Chairman Heath P. Tarbert 

• Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz 

• Commissioner Rostin Behnam 

• Commissioner Dan Berkovitz 

10:30 AM 

International Coordination in the Time of Covid-19

• Suyash Paliwal, Director, Office of International Affairs, Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission

11:00 AM 

Presentation of Report and Recommendations from the GMAC Subcommittee 

on Margin Requirements for Non-Cleared Swaps

• Wendy Yun, Co-Chair (Derivatives Committee), SIFMA AMG (Presenter)

• Subcommittee members (Q&A)

12:30 PM GMAC Vote

12:45 PM Closing Remarks

1:00 PM Adjourn Meeting
AO450 (NVD Rev. 2/18) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

v. 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

Case Number: 

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and 

the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried 

or heard and a decision has been rendered.

Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The issues have been 

considered and a decision has been rendered. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

____________________ DEBRA K. KEMPI 

Date Clerk

Deputy Clerk 

2:19-cv-01697-JAD-DJA Plaintiff,

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, David Gilbert Saffron a/k/a David Gilbert 

and Circle Society, Corp.,Defendants.

that judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and against David 

Gilbert Saffron a/k/a David Gilbert and Circle Society, Corp., jointly and severally, in the total amount of 

$32,141,375. Post-judgment interest on the entire amount of the judgment will run at the rate of 0.07%, 

compounded annually, from March 29, 2021, until satisfied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Permanent Injunction is entered against David Gilbert Saffron a/k/a 

David Gilbert and Circle Society, Corp. and their agents, holding companies, alter egos, including any of 

their successors, and those persons in active concert or participation with them.

3/29/2021 /s/ H. Magennis

Case 2:19-cv-01697-JAD-DJA Document 113 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1

X
Russell BUCKLEW, petitioner, v. Anne L. PRECYTHE, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-8151.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit are granted. In addition to the questions presented in the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following Question: Whether petitioner met his burden under *Glossip v. Gross,* 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2726, 192 L.Ed.2d 761 (2015), to prove what procedures would be used to administer his proposed alternative method of execution, the severity and duration of pain likely to be produced, and how they compare to the State's method of execution.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D22-1497

_____________________________

MICHAEL BOYINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.

September 28, 2022

PER CURIAM.

Because the trial court has ruled on the pleading pending 

below, the Court dismisses the petition for writ of mandamus as 

moot. See Ward v. State, 770 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) 

(dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus as moot where the 

trial court had ruled on the pleading pending below).

LEWIS, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael Boyington, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau 

Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
David Anthony ZOULEK, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 16-9615.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
Anthony McGEE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7117.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
NUMBER 13-17-00152-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI C EDINBURG

MIGUEL GONZALEZ MEJIA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 430th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion to supplement the record and 

to stay due date for appellant’s brief. The reporter’s record in this cause was filed on

November 13, 2017. Appellant has advised this Court that the record does not contain 

proceedings held on the afternoon of January 23, 2017, or the entire days of January 24, 
2

2017, February 4, 2017, and February 2, 2017. Because a complete reporter’s record 

has not been filed, appellant requests that the due date for appellant’s brief be suspended 

until a complete record has been filed with the Court.

When a relevant item has been omitted from the reporter’s record, the appellate

court may by letter direct the trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate 

court a supplemental reporter’s record containing the omitted items. See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.6(d). Accordingly, appellant’s motion to supplement the reporter’s record is 

GRANTED and the appeal is ABATED. Appellant’s motion to suspend briefing is 

GRANTED. 

The court reporter of the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County is directed to 

prepare a supplemental reporter’s record to include proceedings held on the afternoon of 

January 23, 2017, and the entire days of January 24, 2017, February 4, 2017, and 

February 2, 2017. The supplemental record shall be filed with this Court within 30 days 

from the date of this order. 

This appeal will be reinstated upon receipt of the supplemental reporter’s record 

and upon further order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

10th day of January, 2018.
Ann Waldron DAWSON, et al., petitioners, v. CITY OF GRAND HAVEN, MICHIGAN.

No. 17-1024.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.