alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-16-00315-CR

____________________

NATHAN LEE WENZEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court 

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 24,626 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On May 13, 2016, the trial court sentenced Nathan Lee Wenzel on a 

conviction for theft. Wenzel filed a notice of appeal on September 6, 2016. The 

trial court signed a certification, certifying that this is a plea-bargain case and that 

the defendant did not have a right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The 

district clerk provided the trial court’s certification to the Court of Appeals. 

On September 6, 2016, we notified the parties that we would dismiss the 

appeal unless the appellant established grounds for continuing the appeal. No 
2

response has been filed. Because the trial court’s certification shows the defendant 

does not have the right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

 

Submitted on October 4, 2016

Opinion Delivered October 5, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
State of North Carolina v. George Victor Stokes

No. 94PA13-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

George Victor Stokes, Pro Per.

Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for the State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st of March 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*268"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of March 2016 by Defendant-Appellant for Arrest of Judgment:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of March 2016 by Defendant for a New Trial:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24
- 6021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MARK LEON ANDREWS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:18

- cr - 00208

- D

- 1 ; 5:23

- cv - 00263

- D )

Submitted : May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Mark Leon Andrews , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6021 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Mark Leon Andrews seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating tha t reasonable juri sts c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims d ebatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). 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 constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Andrews’ informal brief ,

we conclude tha t he has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief. ” ) ; see also Hicks v. Ferreyra , 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating “this c ourt does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, absent excepti onal circumstances” (cleaned up))

. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6021 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 24-6021 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136487 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136487 

 COA: 273587 

Cass CC: 05-010470-FC 

JEREMY AARON JOSEPH,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2008 

judgment 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. 

0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT GERALD DAGNAN, a/k/a Gerald Robert Dagnan,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief

District Judge. (2:06-cr-00002-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted: August 29, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell,

Research and Writing Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant.

Julie C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Zachary T. Lee,

Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Dagnan appeals his convictions on five counts

relating to the manufacture and possession with intent to

distribute methamphetamine. Dagnan contends that the district

court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to

an officer, allegedly without Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

(1966) warnings, based upon a credibility finding. Finding no

error, we affirm.

We review the district court’s factual findings

underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district

court’s legal determinations de novo. Ornelas v. United States,

517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868,

873 (4th Cir. 1992). The evidence is construed in the light most

favorable to the prevailing party below. United States v. Seidman,

156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).

Dagnan contends that the district court erred in finding

that he was given Miranda warnings and there was no basis to credit

the officer’s testimony that he gave Dagnan Miranda warnings over

his own testimony that none were given. Dagnan particularly points

to the evidence that he was not asked to sign a Miranda waiver and

that the officer did not have his badge case with the warning card,

which the officer said he always uses to advise arrestees of their

Miranda rights, with him in court. Dagnan contends that the

district court did not give specific reasons to support its
3

credibility determination, such as a conflict in testimony or

demeanor of the witnesses.

This court does not “weigh the evidence or review the

credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d

228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). Here, there is not any reason appearing

on the record to disturb the court’s credibility finding. The

district court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, listen

to their testimony, and was in the best position to make the

credibility finding. Based on this determination, the district

court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. 

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 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
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-227-CV

$2,764.00 CURRENT MONEY	APPELLANT

OF THE UNITED STATES AND

VARIOUS PERSONAL PROPERTY

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	David Barela is attempting to appeal a post-answer default judgment of property forfeiture dated April 2, 2007.  Barela did not file his notice of appeal until May 28, 2008, over a year after the date of the judgment.  Because appellant did not file any motions that would have extended the appellate deadlines, his notice of appeal was due May 2, 2007.2  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).

	On July 1, 2008, we notified appellant of our concern that we might not have jurisdiction over the appeal and informed him that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with this court a response on or before July 11, 2008 showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal, this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.  The State filed a motion to dismiss on July 2, 2008.  Appellant filed a response indicating that he received timely notice of the judgment but contending that because he was unaware of the appellate deadlines, the appeal should be continued.

	The times for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in this court, and absent a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).  Because appellant’s notice of appeal was 

not timely filed, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 21, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3855 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3855

To amend section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, to require that 
   the annual budget submissions of the Presidents include the total 
   dollar amount requested for intelligence or intelligence related 
     activities of each element of the Government engaged in such 
                              activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2014

 Mrs. Lummis (for herself, Mr. Welch, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Price of 
North Carolina, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Jordan) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, to require that 
   the annual budget submissions of the Presidents include the total 
   dollar amount requested for intelligence or intelligence related 
     activities of each element of the Government engaged in such 
                              activities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Intelligence Budget Transparency Act 
of 2014''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OF EACH ELEMENT OF THE 
              GOVERNMENT.

    Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
redesignating the second paragraph (37) as paragraph (39) and by adding 
at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(40)(A) the total dollar amount proposed in the budget 
        for intelligence or intelligence related activities of each 
        element of the Government engaged in such activities in the 
        fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and the estimated 
        appropriation required for each of the ensuing four fiscal 
        years; and
            ``(B) as used in subparagraph (A), the term `element of the 
        Government' refers to each element of the intelligence 
        community as defined in section 3(4) of the National Security 
        Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4)).''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          68,730
<SECURITIES>                                    37,623
<RECEIVABLES>                                  183,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,046
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               302,509
<PP&E>                                         180,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 532,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          203,199
<BONDS>                                        168,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           342
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   532,577
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               554,227
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  511,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,013
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,897
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,015
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,882
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,097
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
Theodore Harrison, Jr. a/k/a Lumumba Incumaa, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 14, 2016

*576ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 11, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable J. Mark Hayes, II be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Hayes shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Hayes shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53360-53361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17814]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may obtain 
copies of agreements by contacting the Commission's Office of 
Agreements at 202-523-5793 or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#097d7b686d6c68676865707a607a496f646a276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c282e3d38393d323d30252f352f1c3a313f723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the 
Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 
days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.
    Agreement No.: 011290-035.
    Title: International Vessel Operators Hazardous Material 
Association Agreement.

[[Page 53361]]

    Parties: Alian[ccedil]a Navegacao e Logistica Ltda.; APL Co. PTE 
Ltd.; Atlantic Container Line AB; Australia-New Zealand Direct Line; 
Bermuda Container Line; Canada Maritime Agencies Ltd.; China Shipping 
Container Lines Co., Ltd.; CMA CGM, S.A.; Compania Latino Americana de 
Navegacion SA; Contship Containerlines; COSCO Container Lines, Inc.; CP 
Ships USA LLC; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Evergreen Marine Corp. 
(Taiwan) Ltd.; Hamburg-S[uuml]damerikanische Dampfschifffahrts-
gesellschaft KG; Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.; Hapag-Lloyd Container Linie 
GmbH; Horizon Lines, LLC; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; 
Independent Container Line Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd.; Marine 
Transport Lines, Inc.; Maruba SCA; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; A.P. 
Moller-Maersk A/S; National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia; Nippon Yusen 
Kaisha Line; Orient Overseas Container Line Limited; P&O Nedlloyd B.V.; 
P&O Nedlloyd Limited; Safmarine Container Lines; Seaboard Marine Ltd.; 
Senator Lines GmbH; Tropical Shipping & Construction Co., Ltd.; United 
Arab Shipping Co. S.A.G.; Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp.; and Zim 
Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd.
    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esquire; Sher & Blackwell; 1850 M 
Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The amendment adds COSCO Container Lines, Inc. as a party 
to the agreement.

    By order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: September 2, 2005.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-17814 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1



                                                                 EXHIBIT 21.1




                       RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. SUBSIDIARIES



1.     RCG Mississippi, Inc.
2.     Renal Care Group of the Midwest, Inc.
3.     Renal Care Group Texas, Inc.
4.     D.M.N. of Indiana Corporation
5.     RCG University Division, Inc.
6.     Renal Care Group of the Southeast, Inc.
7.     Renal Care Group East, Inc.
8.     Renal Care Group Arizona, Inc.
9.     Northeast Alabama Kidney Clinic, Inc.
10.    Dialysis Management Corporation
11.    RCG PA Merger Corp.
12.    RCG Indiana, LLC
13.    RenaLab, Inc.
14.    RCG Finance, Inc.
15.    RenalPartners, Inc.
16.    RenalNet, Inc.
17.    RenalNet Florida, Inc.
18.    R.C.G. Supply Company
19.    RCG Brandon, LLC
20.    RCG Pikeville, LLC
21.    RCG Southaven, LLC
22.    Southern Ocean County Dialysis Clinic, LLC
23.    Renal Institute of Central Jersey, LLC
24.    Saint Louis Renal Care, LLC
25.    Saint Louis Supply Company, LLC
26.    Ohio Renal Care Group, LLC
27.    Ohio Renal Care Supply Company, LLC
28.    Elyria Renal Care, LLC
29.    Integrated Wound Care Systems, Inc.
30.    STAT Dialysis Corporation
31.    Brownsville Kidney Center, Ltd.
32.    El Paso Kidney Center East, Ltd.
33.    Angleton Dialysis, Inc.
34.    Brazoria Kidney Center, Inc.
35.    Fondren Dialysis Clinic, Inc.
36.    Wharton Dialysis, Inc.
37.    Stuttgart Dialysis, LLC
38.    KDCO, Inc.
39.    Little Rock Dialysis, Inc.
40.    Jefferson County Dialysis, Inc.
41.    Lawton Dialysis, Inc.
42.    Northwest Dialysis, Inc.
43.    Four State Regional Dialysis Center, Inc.
44.    Fort Scott Regional Dialysis Center, Inc.
45.    Miami Regional Dialysis Center, Inc.
46.    RCG/Saint Luke's, LLC
47.    Renal Care Group Michigan, Inc.
48.    RCG  Martin, LLC
49.    TCMC Dialysis Center, LLC
50.    Renal Care Group Northwest, Inc.
51.    Pacific Northwest Renal Services, LLC
52.    Michigan Home Dialysis Center, Inc.
53.    Sumner Regional Dialysis Center, LLC
54.    RCG Columbus, L.L.C.
55.    RCG Lake Village, LLC
56.    Summit Renal Care, LLC
57.    RenalNet Arizona, Inc.
58.    Wisconsin Renal Care Group, L.L.C.
59.    Dialysis Centers of America, Inc.
60.    SSKG Inc.
61.    Dialysis Centers of America - Illinois, Inc.
62.    Renal Care Group Alaska, Inc.
63.    Renal Care Group Southwest Holdings, Inc.
64.    Renal Care Group Southwest, L.P.
65.    RCG West Health Supply, L.C.
66.    Kidney Disease Centers of the Ozarks, LLC
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-57,016]

Smurfit-Stone Container, Container Division, Statesville, NC; 
Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for workers at Smurfit-Stone Container, Container 
Division, Statesville, North Carolina. The application contained no new 
substantial information which would bear importantly on the 
Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was 
issued.

TA-W-57,016; Smurfit-Stone Container, Container Division, 
Statesville, NC (September 7, 2005)

    Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of September 2005.
Timothy Sullivan,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-18541 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
```