alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 10807 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Anthony Ray Williams,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07

- CR

- 147

- 1

**________________ ______________**  Before **Stewart, Graves,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Anthony Ray Williams, federal prisoner # 36832

- 177, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP ) in his appeal from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He is currently serving a 314

- month sentence for various robbery and firearm convictions. The district court determined that Williams failed to show ext raordinary and

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 14, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10807 Document: 00517064156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024No. 23

- 10807

2 compelling reasons warranting a reduction in sentence and further that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of granting relief. See § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In his brief on appeal, Williams renews his arguments that compassio nate release is warranted based on the extraordinary and compelling circumstances that (i) various changes to the sentencing laws would result in a lower sentence if he were sentenced today ; and (ii) he has been rehabilitated.
To the extent Williams’s argu ments challenge the district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors, they amount to no more than a disagreement with the district court ’s balancing of the se factors, which is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 69 3

- 94 (5th Cir. 2020) . Because Williams fails to identify a nonfrivolous argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying relief based on the balancing of the § 3553(a) factors , we need not consider his arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See United States v. Jackson , 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States , 11 F.4th 354, 360

- 62 (5th Cir. 2021) ; Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693

. Williams asks that his case be reassign ed to a different district court judge. His request is of no moment because he has not raised a nonfrivolous issue that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release. See Johnson v. Harris Cnty. , 83 F.4th 941, 9 47 (5th Cir. 2023). Accordingly, his IFP motion is **DENIED** , and the appeal is **DISMISSED** as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); **5th Cir.**  **R. 42.2**

. Case: 23-10807 Document: 00517064156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2024
STATE of North Carolina v. Lawrence Henry DAWSON.

No. COA15-1399.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No error in part; Vacated and Remanded in part.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00279-CR

IN RE RICHARD FRANKLIN

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Franklin’s petition for writ of mandamus was filed in this Court on 

August 6, 2008. Franklin has not provided a proper proof of service or a certified or 

sworn copy of every document that is material to his claim for relief after being 

requested by letter to provide those items.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 52.3. Therefore, 

Franklin’s petition is denied.

Franklin’s accompanying motion for leave to file the petition is dismissed as 

moot. The Rules of Appellate Procedure were amended in 1997 to eliminate the need 

for a motion for leave to file the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52, Notes and Comments.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

 

1

Instead of providing a proper proof of service, Franklin prepared and delivered a new petition for writ 

of mandamus with a proper proof of service. This petition was filed on August 29, 2008 as appellate 

number 10-08-00309-CR.
In re Franklin Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Petition denied

Motion dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 17, 2008

Do not publish 

[OT06]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of TELE CENTRO OESTE CELULAR
      PARTICIPACOES S.A. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2003, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Luis Andre Carpintero
      Blanco, Executive Officer of Finance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S.
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

            (i)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and

            (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

    Date:  June 30, 2004

By: /s/  Luis Andre Carpintero Blanco
    -------------------------------------------
         Name: Luis Andre Carpintero Blanco
         Title:   Officer of Finance
USA TROUSER, S.A. DE C.V. v. James A. WILLIAMS; Navigators Insurance Company; and Navigators Management Company, Inc.

No. 94P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Matthew K. Rogers, Attorney at Law, Hickory, for USA Trouser, S.A. de C.V.

Angelo G. Savino, Tracy L. Eggleston, Patrick M. Aul, Charlotte, Attorneys at Law, for Navigators Insurance Company, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of March 2018 by Plaintiff 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
The Honorab le Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3964

___________ James Brooks, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Normandy Middle School; John * Fredrics, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 4, 1997 Filed: March 7, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James Brooks appeals the district court's dismissal withou t 1 prejud iceof his employment discrimination action for failure t o obtain a right-to-sue letter. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the judgment of the distric t court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest:-2- CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
STATE v. Tilmon Charles GOLPHIN

441A98-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2018

Jay H. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorney at Law, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Durham, Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors.

*381The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by North Carolina Council of Churches for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of July 2018."

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).
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SAUL ALFREDO LUJAN-SUAR EZ, a .k.a . M anue l Sua

re z -Sua re s, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-72615 Age n c y No. A090-526-353 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 15, 2013 * * B e fore : FISHER , GOULD, a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Sa ul Alfre do Luja

n-Suare z , a

native and c itiz e n

of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of a

n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s orde r of re m ova l. W e dism i ss the pe tition for re vie w. 

# FIL ED OCT 25 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Luja

n-Suare z doe s not c ha lle nge the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t he is re m ova ble unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(C ) due to his c onvic tion for m isc onduc t involving we a

p ons unde r Ariz ona

R e v ise d Statute s § 13-3102. His rem ova bility on this ba sis limits our jurisdic tion to c o nstitutiona l c la im s and que stions of la w. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(C )-(D). Luja n-Suare z ’ s a sse rtion tha

t he ha s re side d in the Unite d State s sinc e c hildhood is not a suffic i e ntly c olora ble c la i m to invokeour jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D). Se e Martine z-Rosas v . Gonzale

s , 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ To be c olora ble in this c onte xt, the [que s tion of la w ] ne e d not be substa ntia l, but thec la im

m ust ha ve som e possibleva lidity .” (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D.

1 1 - 7 2 6 1 5 2
**Exhibit 23.01**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-147476, No. 333-130143, No. 333-82424,No. 333-58118, No. 333-32544, and No. 333-73443) on Form S-8 of Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Heidrick &Struggles International, Inc. (the Company) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2007 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Heidrick &Struggles International, Inc. 

 

Our report dated February 28, 2008 notesthat the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans—an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87,88, 106 , and 132(R),* on December 31, 2006, SFAS No. 123R, *Share-Based Payment,* on January 1, 2006, and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—aninterpretation of FASB Statement No. 109*, on January 1, 2007. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Chicago,Illinois 

February 28, 2008
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 24, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-0376 Lower Tribunal No. 10-19498

________________ 

### Flamingo on Ocean, Inc. , Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

vs. 

### Michele Merlo , Appellee/Cross-Appellant. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge. Coffey Burlington, P.L., and Jeffrey B. Crockett; Jason B. Giller, P.A., and Jason B. Giller; Brian M. Torres, P.A., and Brian M. Torres, for appellant/cross-appellee. Jorge L. Guerra, P.A., and Jorge L. Guerra; Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Edward G. Guedes, for appellee/cross-appellant. Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Trytek v. Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1194, 1203 (Fla. 2009).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6495

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DALLAS EDWARD WEBER, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00020-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dallas Edward Weber, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Wagner, Assistant U. S. Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6495 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Dallas Edward Weber, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step 

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review the district 

court’s ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir. 2022). Upon review of the record, we discern 

no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that Weber failed to present an 

extraordinary and compelling reason for release based on his challenge to the court’s 

jurisdiction over his criminal prosecution. See United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 

272 (4th Cir. 2022) (“[A] compassionate release motion cannot be used to challenge the 

validity of a defendant’s conviction or sentence.”), petition for cert. filed, No. 22-1216 

(U.S. June 16, 2023). Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss the 

appeal and affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6495 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
STATE of North Carolina v. Byron Jerome PARKER

No. 393P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Michele A. Goldman, Attorney at Law, for Parker, Byron Jerome.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of November 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 21st of November 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of November 2017 by State of NC 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JENNIFER MANN,

Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH CHAISON,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-0297

[January 18, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Carolyn Bell, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015DR008179NB.

Jennifer Mann, Palm Beach Gardens, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58241-58242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20090]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

September 27, 2005.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Thursday, October 6, 2005.

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following in open session: Secretary

[[Page 58242]]

of Labor v. Elk Run Coal Company, Inc., Docket No. WEVA 2003-149. 
(Issues include whether the judge applied the proper legal standard in 
determining whether a violation 30 CFR 75.220(a)(1) (failure to comply 
with a roof control plan) was significant and substantial.)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs, 
subject4 to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and Sec.  2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen, (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 
for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 05-20090 Filed 10-3-05; 12:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
#### Christopher WITKO v. Ruth WATSON, Regina Coeli, Child Development Center, TIG Insurance Company, Ericka P. Donaldson, and Progressive Insurance Company.

No. 2003-CC-1408.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Progressive Security Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2002-11526D; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CW 2699.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.
ex10-16.htm


EXHIBIT 10.16


 



PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 



	$100,000.00    	February 12, 2013 





                                                                                                               




For value received, Guardian 8 Holdings, a Nevada corporation (the “Maker”) promised to pay to C. Stephen Cochennet, or its registered assigns or successors in interest (the “Holder”) the Principal Amount and Interest (both as defined below) in the manner and upon the terms and conditions as set forth in that Term Note (“Note”) in the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), dated November 13, 2012, which Note became due and payable on or about February 12, 2013.







By execution by the parties herein, this Promissory Note Extension Agreement extends the Maturity Date of the Note to and including April 12, 2013. All terms and conditions of the Note shall remain the same other than the Maturity Date.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker and Holder have caused this Promissory Note Extension Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.


 




 


“Maker”


Guardian 8 Holdings


a Nevada corporation

















By: /s/ Kathleen Hanrahan                                                                


                                                                                                       Kathleen Hanrahan, Chief Financial Officer







“Holder”









 


/s/ C. Stephen Cochennet                                                                


C. Stephen Cochennet
WALKER, et al. v. DRIVEN HOLDINGS, LLC

395A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 11, 2018

David C. Boggs, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Colin R. Stockton, Attorney at Law, for Walker, Ken, et al.

Michael W. Mitchell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Jackson Wyatt Moore, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Driven Holdings, LLC.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed on the 6th of April 2018 by Plaintiffs:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of April 2018."

Plaintiffs shall have up to and including the 16th day of April 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
In the MATTER OF: J.A.K., H.K.K., J.B.K., Minor Children.

No. COA17-1056

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 3, 2018

AFFIRMED.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00150

- CR

Rachel Leigh Drain
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 13th District Court of Navarro County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. D40709

- CR

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
April 28, 2022