alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 11241 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DOMINGO HERNANDEZ

- VILLEDA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:15

- CR

- 21

- 1

Before J ONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Domingo Hernandez

- Villeda
raises an argument that is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States

, 523 U.S. 224, 228, 235 (1998) , which held that convictions used to enhance a
sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) need not be set forth in the indictment

. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
June 21 , 2016
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-11241 Document: 00513557038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016No. 15

- 11241

2 motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-11241 Document: 00513557038 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
Randolph Harris AUSTIN, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9617

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Jesus Cornelio DOLMO-ALVAREZ, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9321

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-241/04)

(2004/C 217/54)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by by European Environmental Bureau, Brussels, Belgium and Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by Mr P. van den Biesen and Mr B. Arentz, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission decided not to amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include ‘Simazine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by Member States. By refusing to include Simazine in Annex I the Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protection products containing this substance.

The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June 2007 and subject to conditions aimed at minimising risk certain limited uses of products containing Simazine. In the preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transitional measures through the current absence of efficient alternatives and the need to allow time for their development.

In support of their application the applicants invoke the pleas and arguments invoked by the same applicants in case T-236/04.

----

(1)  OJ L 78 16.3.2004 p. 50.

(2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1-32.

----
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 4.5(a)

         LIST OF PURCHASERS WHO ENTERED INTO ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT RIGHT
                  REFERENCED IN EXHIBIT 4.5 WITH THE REGISTRANT

1. Cranshire Capital, L.P.

2. Omicron Master Trust

3. Vertical Ventures LLC

4. Truk International Fund, LP

5. Truk International Opportunity Fund, LLC

6. AS Capital Partners, LLC

7. Basso Equity Opportunity Holding Fund Ltd.

8. SRG Capital, LLC

9. Crescent International LTD

10. Bristol Investment Fund, Ltd
James Matthew SHELTON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6316

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL J. CORSETTI,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-949

[June 18, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Michael C. Heisey, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 472013CF000470A.

Michael J. Corsetti, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Melissa MORTON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6617

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1057 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Reactive Blue 21. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2013 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Reactive Blue 21. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REACTIVE BLUE 21. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Reactive Blue 21 (CAS 

No. 73049–92–0) (provided for in subheading 

3204.16.20) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2016 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1057 IH

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

VICTOR DICKERSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 295 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Unpublished Memorandum and

Order of the Superior Court at No. 734 EDA 2016 (Bender, P.J.E., Olson, J., Ford Elliott , P.J.E.), entered on June 6, 2018, affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Philadelphia

Co unty Court of Common Pleas at No.

CP

- 51

- CR

- 0012554

- 2014 (Thomas

Street, J.), entered on November 19,

2015

DISSENTING STATEMENT

JUSTICE WECHT FILED: July 30, 2019

For the reasons outlined in my dissent in Commonwealth v. Santiago , ___ A.3d

___, 2019 WL 2504317 (Pa. June 18, 2019) (Wecht, J., dissenting), and because I believe

that Commonwealth v. Garvin , 293 A.2d 33 (Pa. 1972) should be overruled, I would grant

the above

- captioned petition for allowance of appeal. Petitioner rais es the following

issue:

Because the Superior Court’s reliance on Commonwealth v. Garvin and its unwavering rule that no out

- of

- court identification may ever be the fruit of the poisonous tree after an unlawful seizure stand in direct conflict with

United States and Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent, and because this Court has allowed appeal in Commonwealth v. Santiago , precisely to

address whether Garvin is in conflict with the Fourth Amendment, must this appeal be allowed?

See Petition for Allowance of Appeal at 2. Because I believe that Garvin infringes upon

the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution[ 295 EAL 2018 ]

- 2

and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the answer to Petitioner’s

question may very well be “ yes. ” See Santiago , 2019 WL 3504317 (Wecht, J.,

dissenting). F urther briefing would be required to fully analyze the issue. For these

reasons, I would grant Petitioner’s petition for allowance of appeal.
Lemuel Clayton BRAY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9532

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Luis SAMAYOA-CASTILLO, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5613

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 69**  **47**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. AARON TYLER SOMERVILLE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1 : 08

- cr - 00 442

- JFM

- 1 ; 1 :13

- cv - 0 0437

- JFM )

Submitted : October 17, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Aaron Tyler Somerville , Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John R o mano , Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Aaron Tyler Somerville seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demon strating 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Somerville has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Order entered January 31, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 17 - 00006 - CV No. 05 - 17 - 00007 - CV No. 05 - 17 - 00008 - CV IN RE NAZARIO CHAVEZ , JR., Relator Original Procee ding s from the Justice Court Precinct 1 Place 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JT - 15M8400H



### O RDER Before the Court are relator’s (1) objections to the Court’s January 11, 2017 opinion s dismissing these proceedings for want of jurisdiction and (2) “motion to transfer original documents and exhibits to court of appeals
. ” We construe relator’s objections as a motion for rehearing. T EX . R. A PP . P
. 49.1 . Relator’s objections and motion indicate that he believes he has appealed a November 16, 2016 final judgment rendered by the Dallas County justice court, precinct 1 place 1. This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from the justice courts. T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 22.221(a), (b) (West Supp. 2014) ; see In re Pruitt , 05

- 11

- 01526

- CV, 20 11 WL 5557539, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Nov. 16, 2011, no pet.)
. Further, t here is no appeal pending in this Court regarding the judgment relator complains of , and we have no record of the filing of a notice of appeal. Accordingly, we deny the motion for rehearing and deny as moot relator’s “motion to transfer original documents and exhibits to court of appeals.”/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE
----

(2004/C 78 E/0673)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3733/03

by Constanze Krehl (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Social partnerships for regional structural development in Saxony

The ‘Stiftung Innovation und Arbeit Sachsen’ (‘Foundation for Innovation and Employment in Saxony’) is a specific example of one of Saxony's ‘Alliances for Employment’. Employers, employees and the state are represented in equal numbers in the foundation's bodies, and one of its tasks is to provide expert advice to small and medium-sized enterprises. The regional forums provide an infrastructure enabling regional actors to become involved in the development of regional models and projects.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 OF 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

----
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 12, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00373

- CV

JOHN EARL HALL , Appellant

V.
ELSIE MARTIN

- SIMON , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 915878



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This appeal is from a final judgment signed April 15 , 20 13 . No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.

On August 15 , 20 13 , notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provi ded this court2

with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant has not provided
this court with proof of payment for the record, and the record has not been filed.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Boyce, and Jamison.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- Speegle Construction, Inc. Under Contract No. W91278-07-D-0038 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60089

Jesse W. Rigby, Esq.

Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry,

Bond & Stackhouse Pensacola, FL Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney David C. Brasfield, Jr. Esq. Andrea M. Dowdy, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 15 December 2016

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is atrue copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60089, Appeal ofSpeegle Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 114 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 114

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
concerning the election of the Members of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2014

 Mr. Larson of Connecticut introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
concerning the election of the Members of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of 
Members chosen every fourth year by the people of the several States. 
Immediately after the first election, they shall be assembled and 
divided as equally as may be into two classes. The seats of the 
Representatives of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration 
of the second year and the second class at the expiration of the fourth 
year, so that one half may be chosen every second year.
    ``Section 2. This article shall not be so construed as to affect 
the election or term of any Representative chosen before it becomes 
valid as part of the Constitution.
    ``Section 3. This article shall apply to the first election of 
Representatives which occurs after ratification but no earlier than 
2018.
    ``Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 K-Fed Bancorp (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel A. Cano, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 and in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q that:

     3.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     4.   The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the company's financial condition and results of
          operations.



Date: March 24, 2004                               /s/ Daniel A. Cano
      -------------------                          -------------------------
                                                   Daniel A. Cano
                                                   Chief Financial Officer




                                       18
Lavern BEHM, Petitioner v. MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES CO.

No. 19-197

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied.
December 5, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF H.B-S. AND C.B-S, CHILDREN

NO. 14-13-00910-CV V.

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order 

signed by the court below on September 26, 2013. Having considered the motion 

and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, M.M.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Vara BIRAPAKA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY, et al.

No. 19-6286

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

May 31, 2017

CCO-087

No. 17-1184 & 17-1363

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

GEORGE J. PODLUCKY,

 Appellant

(W.D. Pa. Nos. 2-09-cr-00278-001, 2-09-cr-00279-001, 2-11-cr-00037-001)

Present: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD and FISHER, Circuit Judges

1. “Notice to the Court” treated as a Motion filed by Appellant for

 reconsideration.

2. Motion by Appellant in 17-1363 to stay case.

Respectfully,

Clerk/tyw

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

Appellant’s “Notice To The Court,” which has been treated as a motion for 

reconsideration, is granted to this extent: the Not Precedential Opinions and Judgments 

filed on the docket on May 16, 2017 are vacated. In addition, because appellant’s 

summary action response relating to C.A. No. 17-1184 is dated May 15, 2017, the Court 

will consider it. Revised opinions will be issued. Despite the arguments raised in 

appellant’s response to summary action, the reissued opinions and judgments will reflect 

that the appeal docketed at C.A. No. 17-1184 (D.C. Crim. Nos. 11-cr-00037, 09-cr00279, & 09-cr-00278) summarily affirms the District Court’s order entered on January 

13, 2017 denying appellant’s motion to withdraw the plea; and that the appeal docketed 

at C.A. No. 17-1363 (D.C. Crim. No. 09-cr-00279) summarily affirms the District 

Court’s January 20, 2017 order denying appellant’s motion to release the lien. 

Appellant’s arguments on the merits in his summary action response cannot be addressed 

because the District Court lacked jurisdiction to consider his criminal Rule 11 motion. 
Summary affirmance of the District Court’s order entered on 1/13/17 denying the motion 

to withdraw the plea was and remains appropriate. Appellant’s motion to stay the appeal 

in C.A. No. 17-1363 is denied.

By the Court,

s/ Richard L. Nygaard

Circuit Judge

Dated: June 7, 2017
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7569

JAMES MALLARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SUPERINTENDENT PERLMAN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

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

District Judge. (CA-05-436)

Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 11, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Mallard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Mallard moves for a certificate of appealability,

seeking review of the district court's order dismissing as

successive his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 for claims addressed by a district

court 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Mallard has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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