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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4734

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

YANCEY COOPER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. 

(1:08-cr-00239-BEL-1)

Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sicilia Chinn Englert, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Yancey Cooper pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to one count of distribution of and possession with 

intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & 

Supp. 2011). The district court sentenced Cooper to 180 months’ 

imprisonment, as stipulated in the plea agreement pursuant to 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Cooper contends on appeal that, 

as a result of the district court’s omissions at the Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11 colloquy, his guilty plea was not knowing and 

voluntary. We affirm.

Because Cooper did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, we review his claims for plain error. 

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-25 (4th Cir. 2002). 

To establish plain error, Cooper must show that: (1) an error 

was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects his 

substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 

(1993). Even if Cooper makes this showing, however, correction 

of the error lies within our discretion, which we will not 

exercise unless the error “seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

(internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted).

Cooper contends that his guilty plea was not knowing 

and voluntary because the district court did not advise him that 
3

his guilty plea waived all antecedent non-jurisdictional defects 

and failed to inform him about the waiver of trial rights and 

the mandatory maximum and minimum penalties for his offense.

Even if there were omissions at the Rule 11 hearing, 

Cooper is not entitled to relief because any errors did not 

affect his substantial rights. An error affects a defendant’s 

substantial rights if it is so prejudicial as to affect the 

outcome of the proceedings. Martinez, 277 F.3d at 532. In the 

guilty plea context, a defendant meets this standard by showing 

that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the Rule 11 error. 

Id. We conclude that Cooper has failed to make this showing. 

Accordingly, we discern no plain error.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of The Castle Group, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I , Rick Wall, CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors and acting CFO, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:March  31, 2010By:/s/ Rick WallRick WallChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors and acting CFO
1 / 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, 

LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MCDONALDS CORPORATION,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:23-CV-00405-RWS-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (the “Stipulation”) filed by Analytical 

Technologies LLC (“Plaintiff”) and McDonalds Corporation (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 13.) In the 

Stipulation, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request 

dismissal of the above-captioned action WITH prejudice. (Id. at 1.) 

Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that 

all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-captioned 

case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and 

attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted 

herein are DENIED AS MOOT. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.

Case 2:23-cv-00405-RWS-RSP Document 14 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 69
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                                  SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                NAME UNDER WHICH
         SUBSIDIARY                       STATE OF INCORPORATION            SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
         ----------                       ----------------------            ------------------------

<S>                                              <C>                    <C>
Heartland Cable Television, Inc.                 Delaware               Heartland Cable Television, Inc.
Nucentrix Internet Services, Inc.                Delaware               Nucentrix Internet Services, Inc.
Nucentrix Spectrum Resources, Inc.               Delaware               Nucentrix Spectrum Resources, Inc.
</TABLE>

Note: We have omitted 34 wholly-owned subsidiaries which carry on the same line
of business as Nucentrix. All of these subsidiaries operate in the United
States.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ZACHARY L. MOYE §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-353

ANGELA N. CHEVALIER, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Zachary L. Moye, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. This matter was

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order

for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

 Procedural Background

The court previously entered a Preliminary Filing Fee Order directing plaintiff to either pay

the filing fee or submit a properly certified application to proceed in forma pauperis showing

deposits into his inmate trust account during the preceding six month period. Plaintiff was given

20 days to comply with the court’s Order. The time for complying with the Order has expired. 

However, plaintiff has failed to comply with the Order. 

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for

failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030,

1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v.

Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370

U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).

By failing to comply with the Order described above, plaintiff has failed to diligently

prosecute this lawsuit. As a result, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Case 1:23-cv-00353-MJT-ZJH Document 9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20
Recommendation

This civil rights lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n.,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 4th day of January, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00353-MJT-ZJH Document 9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITE ENTIRETY
     BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         58,532,625
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  21,083,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,632,654)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               79,501,112
<PP&E>                                         39,188,631
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,191,016)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,318,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,606,042
<BONDS>                                        88,947,961
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       120,270
<OTHER-SE>                                     52,928,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,318,100
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               28,183,491
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  21,437,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,108,974
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,654,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,528,272
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,520,727
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,462,937
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,462,937
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .15
        

</TABLE>
Alan MAPUATULI, et al., petitioners, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General.

No. 18-269.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6439

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DAVID RUSSELL REYNOLDS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:08-hc-02157-BR)

Submitted: September 18, 2009 Decided: September 30, 2009

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana Pereira, Research and Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, David T. Huband, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: David Russell Reynolds appeals the district court’s order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Reynolds asserts that the district court erred in concluding that he posed a substantial risk of danger to others as a result of his mental disorder because the court based its conclusion on conjecture and speculation. We affirm. After a hearing, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Reynolds “is presently suffering from a

mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). Our thorough review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Reynolds met

this standard. United States v. LeClair , 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating standard of review); see United States v.

Robinson , 404 F.3d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 2005) (reviewing for clear error court’s decision regarding defendant’s competency to stand trial and citing United States v. Cox , 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992)); see also United States v. Harvey , 532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating that a finding is clearly erroneous “when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite

23 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. 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
ORDER – Page Solo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

KAZIM OLADOTUN OYENUGA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

OMOYELE SOWORE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-00389-ALMAGD

ORDER

Pending before the court is pro se Plaintiff Kazim Oladotun Oyenuga’s (“Plaintiff”)

Motion for Leave to File out of Time (Dkt. #9). Per the court’s Order for Amended Complaint 

(Dkt. #6), Plaintiff’s original deadline to file an amended complaint was June 2, 2023. On June 

6, 2023, the court extended the deadline until August 1, 2023 (Dkt. #8). Now, after reviewing 

Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #10), which was filed on August 

3, 2023, and all other relevant filings, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted. 

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File out of Time (Dkt. #9)

is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #10) is deemed properly filed before 

the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cv-00389-ALM-AGD Document 11 Filed 08/13/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 49
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

JOHN W. BANOS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv306

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

 ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner John W. Banos, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled petition for writ of error 

coram nobis. The Court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United

States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable orders of this Court. The

Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

recommending the petition be dismissed without prejudice.

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and

the applicable law. After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion the objections are without

merit. The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that as petitioner remains in custody as a result of the

state court convictions he challenges, he cannot obtain relief by filing a petition for writ of error

coram nobis.

In his objections, petitioner asks that his filing be considered as a petition for a writ of audita

querela. However, this writ is only available where the legal objection being raised cannot be

brought pursuant to any other post-conviction remedy. United States v. Banda, 1 F.3d 354, 356 (5th 

Cir. 1993). As petitioner’s legal objections to his convictions may be asserted in a petition for writ

of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he may not seek relief through a petition for

a writ of audita querela. Id.

Case 1:23-cv-00306-MJT-ZJH Document 6 Filed 10/03/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 25
ORDER

Accordingly, petitioner’s objections [Dkt. 4] are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge [Dkt.

3] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge.

2

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 3rd day of October, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00306-MJT-ZJH Document 6 Filed 10/03/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 26
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,591
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,355
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,940
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,765
<PP&E>                                         125,210
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 224,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,058
<BONDS>                                        131,972
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           227
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   224,434
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,928
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,345
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,108)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,427)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,598
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,171
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32155-32156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11441]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR22-40-000.
    Applicants: Hope Gas, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: HGI--2021 PREP Filing to 
be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220520-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-928-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--GDF Suez Mexico 
Comercializadora, S. de R.L. de C.V SP361338 to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 5/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220520-5154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-929-000.
    Applicants: Roaring Fork Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 587-Z Compliance Filing 
to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220520-5157.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-930-000.
    Applicants: BBT AlaTenn, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: BBT Ala-Tenn Refiling of RP20-
508 tariff records to be effective 3/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220520-5163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-931-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: Annual Fuel Gas Reimbursement Report of White River 
Hub, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220520-5259.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/22.


[[Page 32156]]


    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 23, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11441 Filed 5-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P