alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2219

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Clyde Allen Lincoln

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________

Submitted: April 13, 2020

Filed: May 14, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Clyde Lincoln pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine near a protected location in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B), and 860(a). The district court1

 determined Lincoln was a career offender

and sentenced him to 188 months of imprisonment and 8 years of supervised release,

a sentence at the lowest end of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual’s

(“Guidelines”) range of 188 to 235 months. Absent the career-offender classification,

the recommended Guidelines range would have been 151 to 188 months. On appeal,

Lincoln challenges the district court’s career-offender determination. We review that

determination de novo. United States v. Quigley, 943 F.3d 390, 393 (8th Cir. 2019).

Lincoln qualifies as a career offender if he (1) “was at least eighteen years old

at the time [he] committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense

of conviction is a felony that is . . . a controlled substance offense; and (3) [he] has

at least two prior felony convictions of . . . a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.1(a). Citing two prior drug convictions under Iowa Code section

124.401(1)(c)(6), the district court classified Lincoln as a career offender. Lincoln

argues these prior convictions are not proper career-offender predicates because

“Iowa’s aiding and abetting statute is broader than the generic definition of aiding and

abetting.” Recognizing that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Boleyn,

Lincoln argues that case was wrongly decided and should be overruled. 929 F.3d

932, 938–40 (8th Cir. 2019). But because “one panel is bound by the decision of a

prior panel,” Lincoln seeks relief which we cannot grant. United States v. Boykin,

794 F.3d 939, 948 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Owsley v. Luebbers, 281 F.3d 687, 690

(8th Cir. 2002)). We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 82 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 82

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
          Providing a correction in the enrollment of S. 540.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill, S. 540, the Secretary of the Senate 
shall amend the title so as 

              

to read: ``To temporarily extend the public debt limit, and for other 
purposes.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 11, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Steven Talbert WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 19-5398

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Barbara Nina DAVIS, Petitioner v. MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P. ; Joseph's/Candler Health System, Inc.

No. 19-703.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
Daniel Jay BOWMAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7408

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**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 Quarterly Report of G & L Realty Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David E. Hamer, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies 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 Company.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

WAYNE JONES §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv459

TDCJ-PARDONS AND PAROLES DIV. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Wayne Jones proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. The Court referred this matter

to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge has

submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the case

be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

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

Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Proper notice was given to plaintiff at his

last known address. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2). No objections were filed to the Report and

Recommendation.

ORDER

Accordingly, 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 as the opinion of the Court. A final

judgment shall be entered in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

 

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 16th day of May, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00459-MJT-ZJH Document 5 Filed 05/16/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 18
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6510 STEVEN HENRY TROTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE BRYANT, York County Sheriff; ALLEN BRANDON, Sheriff; RUSSELL YEAGER, Deputy, York County Sheriff’s Department; YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, City, Town and Municipality; DAVID FORTSON, JR., Chief of Police; CHARLES CABANISS, Captain, Rock Hill Police Department; CITY OF ROCK HILL; YORK COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; ROCK HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:03-cv-02729-RBH) Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 2, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Henry Trotman, Appellant Pro Se. Terry B. Millar, TERRY B. MILLAR, L.L.C., Rock Hill, South Carolina; Barton Jon Vincent, David Leon Morrison, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Steven Henry Trotman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We deny Trotman’s motion to appoint counsel, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Trotman v. Bryant , No. 0:03-cv02729-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2006). 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
JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES, L.L.C., et al., Applicants v. Rebekah GEE, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

No. 18A774.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 1, 2019.

**ORDER**

Because the filings regarding the application for a stay in this matter were not completed until earlier today and the Justices need time to review these filings, the issuance of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 17-30397, is administratively stayed through Thursday, February 7, 2019. This order does not reflect any view regarding the merits of the petition for a writ of certiorari that applicants represent they will file.

*/s/ Samuel A. Alito, Jr.*

Associate Justice of the Supreme

Court of the United States
# C_2017413EN.01000501.xml

| 5.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/5

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 413/04)

| Member State | Czech Republic |
| --- | --- |
| Routes concerned | Brno (Czech Republic) – Munich (Germany) |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 25 March 2018 |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained | For further information please contact:





  CÍSAŘ, ČEŠKA, SMUTNÝ s.r.o., advokátní kancelář |
| Hvězdova 1716/2b |
| 140 00 Praha 4 |
| CZECH REPUBLIC |
| Tel. +420 224827884 |
| Fax +420 224827879 |
| hrstka@akccs.cz |
| www.akccs.cz |

Member State

Czech Republic

Routes concerned

Brno (Czech Republic) – Munich (Germany)

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

25 March 2018

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained

For further information please contact:

CÍSAŘ, ČEŠKA, SMUTNÝ s.r.o., advokátní kancelář

Hvězdova 1716/2b

140 00 Praha 4

CZECH REPUBLIC

Tel. +420 224827884

Fax +420 224827879

hrstka@akccs.cz

www.akccs.cz

---
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11313

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS RAMIREZ-CADENA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-44-2

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

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appointed counsel for Jesus Ramirez-Cadena (Ramirez) has

requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramirez has not filed

a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s

brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
Demetrius Dewayne SMITH, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19-6482.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.43.1    
    


Schedule
of Omitted Documents in the Form of Exhibit 10.43, Including Material Detail in Which Such Documents Differ From Exhibit 10.43 


	1.
	Indemnification
Agreement, dated as of December 3, 2003, between Vital Living and Bradley D. Edson.



	2.
	Indemnification
Agreement, dated as of December 3, 2003, between Vital Living and Stuart A. Benson.



	3.
	Indemnification
Agreement, dated as of December 3, 2003, between Vital Living and Donald C. Hannah.



	4.
	Indemnification
Agreement, dated as of December 3, 2003, between Vital Living and Carson Beadle.



	5.
	Indemnification
Agreement, dated as of December 3, 2003, between Vital Living and Leslie C. Quick, III.



	6.
	Indemnification
Agreement, dated as of December 3, 2003, between Vital Living and Robert J. Eide.



	7.
	Indemnification
Agreement, dated as of December 3, 2003, between Vital Living and David Allen.



	8.
	Indemnification
Agreement, dated as of December 3, 2003, between Vital Living and Marcus Feder. 



        The
form of the documents listed above does not differ in material detail from the form of exhibit 10.43 except with respect to the identity of the director or officer. 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.43.1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

HERBERT ARCENEAUX, #1920251 §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-318-JDK-JDL

§

WARDEN, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Herbert Arceneaux, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 while he was an inmate of the East Texas Treatment Facility and did 

not pay the filing fee. The case was transferred to this Court for proper venue and 

referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, 

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

On September 29, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that 

Plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff had failed to 

comply with the Court’s order to either pay the filing fee or support his application to 

proceed as a pauper with the required documentation. Docket No. 8. A copy of this 

Report was mailed to Plaintiff, but it was returned as undeliverable. Docket No. 9.

Plaintiff has not objected, filed a notice of change of address, or taken any other action 

to prosecute this case since it was filed.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 

Case 6:23-cv-00318-JDK-JDL Document 10 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7
2

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 

record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 8) as the findings of this Court. It is 

therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper (Docket No. 

2) is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6th November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00318-JDK-JDL Document 10 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

SHELDON RAMON STARLING 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 6:23-CR-00078-JDK 

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court referred this matter to the Honorable John D. Love, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate 

Judge recommended that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant 

guilty on Count Two of the Indictment. 

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers 

acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Sheldon 

Ramon Starling GUILTY of Count Two of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) - Felon in Possession of a Firearm. 

Case 6:23-cr-00078-JDK-JDL Document 26 Filed 01/10/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 67
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PHISON ELECTRONICS C ORP., Appellant

v.

SILICON MOTION TECHNOLOGY CORP., Appellee

______________________

2015

- 1632

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013

- 00473.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

D AVID M ICHAEL H OFFMAN , Fish & Richardson, P.C., Austin, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by

D AVID M. B ARKAN , Redwood City, CA; P ROSHANTO
M UKHERJI , Boston, MA.

J ASON A LEXANDER E NGEL , K&L Gates LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by B ENJAMIN
E DWARD W EED

, D EVON C. B EANE ; M ELVIN C HAN , AKA Chan LLP, Santa Clara, CA.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, D YK and W ALLACH

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 11, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk of Court
Dalia A. DIPPOLITO, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 19-7040

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                      Exhibit 11

                             PALMER WIRELESS, INC.

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Years Ended December 31,
                                            -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1992          1993         1994          1995         1996
                                                 ----          ----         ----          ----         ----
<S>                                                <C>         <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>
Number of shares of common stock
     outstanding at beginning of the
     period                                        17,993       17,993        17,993       18,000       23,389

Weighted average number of shares of
     common stock issued during the
     period                                          ----         ----             7        4,179        2,701

Weighted average number of shares of
     common stock from stock options
     using the treasury stock method                 ----         ----          ----          148          149

Weighted average number of shares of
     common stock purchased for the
     treasury during the period                      ----         ----          ----         ----        (107)
                                                ---------     --------       -------      -------      -------
Weighted average number of shares of
     common stock outstanding during
     the period                                    17,993       17,993        18,000       22,327       26,132
                                                =========     ========       =======      =======      =======
Net income (loss)                               $ (12,228)    $ (7,352)      $ 1,662      $   954      $ 4,682
                                                =========     ========       =======      =======      =======

Earnings (loss) per common share                $    (.68)    $   (.41)      $   .09      $   .04      $   .18
                                                =========     ========       =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>