alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 October 2, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30196 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHARLES WESLEY WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 02-CR-60035-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, EMILO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Charles Wesley White appeals from his jury-verdict conviction
for three counts of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. White has filed a motion seeking leave to
submit a pro se supplemental appeal brief. As there is no right to hybrid representation in a direct criminal appeal, White’s motion
is DENIED. See United States v. Ogbonna , 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1999); see also 5 TH C IR . R. 28.7.No. 03-30196 -2- White c ontends that the district court erred by failing to
make a specific finding that the individuals su pervised by White were criminally responsible participants in the criminal activity
for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The district court was not required to make such a specific finding. S ee United States v. Mejia-Orosco , 867 F.2d 216, 220-21 (5th Cir. 1989).
White also argues that the district court erred by applying a two-level adjustment to his sentence for his role as a supervisor pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) because the individuals he supervised were not criminally responsible partic ipants in the
criminal activity. Because White failed to raise this argument in
district court, the issue is reviewed only for plain error. S ee United States v. Rodriguez , 15 F.3d 408, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1994).

As this issue involves a factual question that was capable of resolution by the district court, it cannot constitute plain error.
See United States v. Lopez , 923 F.2d 47, 50-51 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
# C_2008051EN.01004301.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-156/06) (1)

1

(European Social Fund (ESF) - Reduction in Community assistance initially granted - Action for annulment - Regional or local entity - Lack of direct effect - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 51/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Regione Siciliana (Italy) (represented by: P. Gentile, Avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn, M. Velardo and A. Weimar, agents, assisted by G. Faedo, lawyer)

Defendant(s):

Re:

Action for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1171 of 23 March 2006 concerning a reduction in assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF) for an operational programme in the Region of Sicily forming part of the Community support framework for structural assistance under Objective 1 in Italy (period 1994 to 1999)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Regione Siciliana is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regione Siciliana is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178 of 29.7.2006.

1

---
STATE v. Marvin Wade MILLSAPS.

No. 374P13-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Marvin W. Millsaps, Norlina, for Millsaps, Marvin Wade.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of July 2015 by Defendant for Appellate Review:

> *316"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Matthew Ray HOOKS.

No. 374P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Kimberly P. Hoppin, for Hooks, Matthew Ray.

Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th of November 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th of November 2015 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:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
FAIRES, et al. v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al.

No. 84A16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 1, 2016.

Deborah R. Stagner, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Faires, Sabra, et al.

*171Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State Board of Elections, et al.

Michael Crowell, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Faires, Sabra, et al.

Stephen G. Rawson, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Faires, Sabra, et al.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State Board of Elections, et al.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State Board of Elections, et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for State Board of Elections, et al.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, for State Board of Elections, et al.

Neal A. Ramee, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Faires, Sabra, et al.

John V. Orth, for John V. Orth.

Mark R. Sigmon, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for ACLU of NC, et al.

Christopher A. Brook, Raleigh, Legal Director, for ACLU of NC, et al.

Jenifer Wolfe, Attorney at Law, for ACLU of NC, et al.

Elliot M. Engstrom, Attorney at Law, for ACLU of NC, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of March 2016 by American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation and Civitas Institute, Center for Law and Freedom for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of April 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50597

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL MERIDYTH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:99-CR-36-ALL

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Michael Meridyth, federal prisoner # 10030-051, appeals the district

court’s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on

the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. He argues that the reduced

sentence imposed by the district court was greater than necessary to achieve the

goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because his offense of conviction was relatively

minor, his sentence would have been much lower if his offense had involved

powder cocaine rather than cocaine base, his prior conviction for aggravated

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 20, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 08-50597 Document: 00511086473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
No. 08-50597

battery occurred a very long time ago, he has been rehabilitated while in prison,

and he will be employed and have family support upon his release from prison.

We review the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under

§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672

(5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939). The district

court explicitly considered Meridyth’s arguments presented at resentencing and

the § 3553(a) factors before it imposed the reduced sentence, which was within

the lowered guidelines range. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

this case. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 08-50597 Document: 00511086473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Trans  Energy,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
James K. Abcouwer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 Company.


/s/   JAMES K. ABCOUWER
-------------------------
James K. Abcouwer
Chief Executive Officer

April 15, 2008


     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
other  document  authenticating,   acknowledging,   or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff
upon request.  The foregoing  certifications are accompanying the Company's Form
10-KSB  solely  pursuant  to  section  906 of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code)  and is not  being  filed  as part of the  Form  10-KSB  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3682 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3682

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the community based outpatient clinic of the Department of 
 Veterans Affairs located at 1961 Premier Drive in Mankato, Minnesota, 
     as the ``Lyle C. Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. LYLE C. PEARSON COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The community based outpatient clinic of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs located at 1961 Premier Drive in 
Mankato, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the ``Lyle C. 
Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lyle C. 
Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3682

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the community based outpatient clinic of the Department of 
 Veterans Affairs located at 1961 Premier Drive in Mankato, Minnesota, 
     as the ``Lyle C. Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.
```
Exhibit 32
                                                                      ----------


             Certifications pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                       Title 18 of the United States Code

         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code, each of the undersigned officers of Maxcor Financial Group Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("registrant"), does hereby certify to the best of such
officer's knowledge, that:

         1. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2004 (the "Form 10-Q") of the registrant 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
registrant.



Dated:  May 14, 2004                        /s/ GILBERT D. SCHARF
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Gilbert D. Scharf
                                            Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  May 14, 2004                        /s/ STEVEN R. VIGLIOTTI
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Steven R. Vigliotti
                                            Chief Financial Officer

                               Page 59 of 59 Pages
Exhibit 32.1

 

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 Trans Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James K. Abcouwer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the            best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(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 Company.

 

| /s/ | JAMES K. ABCOUWER |
|-----|-------------------|

James K. Abcouwer

Chief Executive Officer

 

April 15, 2009

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon            request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

14 December 2007

Case F-131/06

**Robert Steinmetz**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Amicable settlement – Performance of an agreement – Refusal to reimburse expenditure in connection with a mission – Manifest inadmissibility – No legal interest in bringing proceedings – Apportioning costs – Unreasonable and vexatious costs)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Steinmetz seeks, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21
February 2006 not to give full effect to an agreement which formed part of the amicable settlement reached between the parties
in Case T-155/05, which was brought before the Court of First Instance, and, second, payment of symbolic damages of EUR 1
for the non‐pecuniary harm he alleges.

**Held:**The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs, with the exception of
an amount of EUR 500. In addition to its own costs, the Commission is ordered to bear the applicant’s costs in the sum of
EUR 500.

**Summary**

1.      *Procedure – Admissibility of pleadings – Assessment at the time when the pleading is submitted*

*(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114)*

2.      *Officials – Actions – Action disregarding the content of an amicable settlement which had previously led to a case being withdrawn
– No legal interest in bringing proceedings*

1.      Just as the admissibility of an action must be judged by reference to the situation prevailing when the application was lodged,
the admissibility of other pleadings, such as a plea of inadmissibility, must be judged at the time when they are submitted.
Such an interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

(see para. 27)

See:

50/84 *Bensider and Others* v *Commission* [1984] ECR 3991, para. 8

T-236/00 R II *Stauner and Others* v *Parliament and Commission* [2001] ECR II‐2943, para. 49; T-219/01 *Commerzbank* v *Commission* [2003] ECR II‐2843, para. 61

2.      Where, in a dispute before the Tribunal, an applicant proposes an amicable settlement to a defendant institution, the institution
accepts part of that proposal and, on the basis of that partial acceptance, the applicant successfully requests that the Tribunal
remove the case from the register, the official concerned must be regarded as having accepted the agreement finally proposed
by the institution and therefore has no interest in disputing the content of that agreement on the pretext that it does not
correspond to his initial proposal.

Where an institution has met all of the commitments arising from an agreement reached in a dispute between itself and an applicant,
that applicant has no interest in complaining that the institution did not comply with the terms of that agreement.

(see paras 44-52)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [WY-920-1310-01; WYW131795] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease. 

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW131795 from Encana Energy Resources, Inc. for lands in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW131795 effective April 1, 2004, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands.                 

Pamela J. Lewis, 

Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication. 

[FR Doc. 05-18458 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7830

RAYMOND CHARLES CREASON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

M. W. YORK, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-586)

Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Charles Creason, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Charles Creason seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). Creason’s case was referred to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Creason that

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Creason failed to object to

the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Creason has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly deny Creason’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,

deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, 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