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

### FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2687

___________ Lamarr Love, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. J. W. Tippy, * * [PUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 7, 1997 Filed: November 12, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

In 1994 , Lamarr Love was convicted of federal drug offenses in th e Northern District of Iowa and sentenced as a car eer offender to 270 months in pr ison. Love filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus in th e District of Minnesota, where he is presently incarcerated, alleging that
a 19 88 Wisconsin state court conviction should not have been used t o enhance his federal sentence because it was infected by an

## The HONORABLE DAVID S. DOTY, United States District Judge for the District 1 

## of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the HONORABL E FRANKLIN L . NOEL, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
-2- involu ntary guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel. Th e district court dismissed the petition with prejudice, and Love appeals

. 1 We affirm.
First, construing Love's pro se peti tion as directly challenging his Wisconsin conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the district court dismissed it f or lack of jurisdiction because Love completed serving the stat e sentence before his federal conviction, so he is no longer in custody unde r the state conviction. We agree. See Maleng v. Cook , 490 U.S. 488 (1989); Charlton v. Morris , 5 3 F.3d 929, 929 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 328 (1995).
Second, c onstruing Love's petition as also seeking to challenge the validity of his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the district cour t held that a collateral attack on a prior sentence used to enhance thi s federal sentence is barred by Custis v. United States , 511 U.S. 485 (1994) , as construed in Partee v. Hopkins , 30 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 1994), cert

. denie d , 115 S. Ct. 1135 (1995). On appeal, Love urges us to modify th e distri ct court's judgment to a dismissal without prejudice, no doub t because § 2255 jurisdiction lies in the district court that sentenced him, the North ern District of Iowa, rather than the district where he i s incarcerated. However, the district court's decision to deny § 2255 relie f
was correct on the merits. Custis was a direct federal appeal. Therefore , the Supreme Court's decision establishes that the enhancement issue Love seeks to raise should have been raised at his sentencing and is no w proced urally defaulted, and that he may not collaterally attack th e Wisconsin conviction in this manner because it did not involve a failure to appoint counsel. Because Love was sentenced in another district within the Ei ghth Circuit, we will short-circuit a potential multiplicity o f meritless post-conviction proceedings by affirming the dismissal of hi s petition for § 2255 relief with prejudice.

### -3- The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### YEARWOOD v. YEARWOOD

No. 146 PC.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 532.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 7 January 1975.
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73
          - [DA 05-2932; MB Docket No. 04-328; RM-11046, RM-11235]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Final rule; denial of petition for reconsideration.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document denies a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Southern Broadcasting Companies and Radio Georgia, Inc. directed at the                         *Report and Order*                         in this proceeding, which allotted Channel 295A at Americus, Georgia.                         *See*70 FR 41630, published July 20, 2005. With this action, the proceeding is terminated.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a synopsis of the Commission's                     *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, MB Docket No. 04-328, adopted November 4, 2005, and released November 7, 2005. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or                     *http://www.BCPIWEB.com*. The Commission will not send a copy of this                     *Memorandum Opinion and Order*                     pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,                     *see*5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the aforementioned Petition for Reconsideration was denied.                

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 05-22844 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 12 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 12 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 21-1475

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

SEAN MULKERN,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on September 27, 2022, is 

amended as follows: 

On page 28, line 10, "of" should be inserted between "product" 

and "any"

On page 29, line 19, a parenthesis should be inserted after 

"2015" so that it reads "(1st Cir. 2015)"

On page 33, line 2, "Sean" should be inserted and "Thomas" 

deleted

On page 35, line 7, the underscore following "three)" should be 

deleted
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       UT
<CIK> 0000060549
<NAME> LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                    PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                          1,763,951
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                            1,239
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                               275,701
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                              58,720
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     2,099,611
<COMMON>                                             424,334 <F1>
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                                 (6)<F2>
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                  242,242
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                       666,570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                           95,328
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                 626,800
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                         0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                             0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                              0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                  0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                                0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                           0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                       710,913
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                      2,099,611
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                            440,717
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                  21,634
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           361,471
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           383,105
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                               57,612
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                     1,312
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                        58,924
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,968
<NET-INCOME>                                          40,956
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            2,176
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                         38,780
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                              44,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                             16,632
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                               103,068
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>
<F1>Includes common stock expense of $836.
<F2>Represents unrealized gain/loss on marketable securities,
    net of taxes.



</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-15156-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### BILLINGS v. HARRIS CO.

No. 27 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 689.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 3 February 1976.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10 - 09 - 00381 - CR IN RE CHEYENNE PATE Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION Cheyenne Pate seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Respondent, the Honorable Patrick H. Simmons of the 77th District Court of Limesto ne County, to appoint counsel and reconsider his motion for DNA testing. 1 Mandamus relief may be granted if the relator can demonstrate that (1) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial and (2) the relator has no other adequate legal remedy. I

n re Ludwig , 162 S.W.3d 454, 454 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2005, orig. proceeding) (citing Nev eu v. Culver , 105 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ).

1 Pate ’s application is defective because : (1) his certification do es not comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j); (2) his proof of service does not comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5; and (3 ) he failed to include the required record pursuant to Rule s of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.5 ; see also T EX . R. A PP . P
. 52.3 (k)(1 ); T EX . R. A PP . P
. 52.7
. Nevertheless, we will apply Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and disregard these deficiencies. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 2.In re Pate Page 2

A “convicting court is required to appoint counsel only if it determines that the convicted person is indigent and finds reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed.” Ludwig , 162 S.W.3d at 454

- 55 (citing T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 64.01(c) (Vernon Supp. 2009 )). “[E]ven if the convicting court determines that a convicted pe rson is indigent, the court would not be required to appoint counsel if it found there were no reasonable grounds for the motion to be filed

-- a finding we would review for an abuse of discretion.” Id
. at 455. A ppointment of counsel is not a purely minist erial act. See i d
. Thus , Pate cannot satisfy the first requirement for mandamus relief. I d .; see In re Scott , No. 06

- 08

- 00096

- CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7075, at *2

- 5 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Sept. 24, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
. We, therefore, deny Pate’s petition for writ of mandamus.

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray Justice Reyna , and Justice Davis Writ denied Opinion delivered and filed December 30 , 2009 [OT 06]
Clifford H. Greene (CG 9892) 

CLIFFORD H. GREENE & ASSOCIATES

Attorneys for Defendant

467 North Avenue 

New Rochelle, New York 10801 

Telephone: (914) 738-5992 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No. 07 Civ 3460 

-------------------------------------------------------------------X 

TRUSTEES OF THE WESTCHESTER PUTNAM 

COUNTIES LABORERS’ LOCAL NO. 60 HEAVY & 

HIGHWAY BENEFIT FUNDS, WELFARE, PENSION, 

ANNUITY, EDUCATION & TRAINING, LEGAL 

SERVICES, INDUSTRY ADVANCEMENT AND 

POLITICAL ACTION FUNDS AND THE LABORERS’ 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA 

NO.60, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 -against- ANSWER

 

PERSICO CONTRACTING & TRUCKING 

INC, 

 

 Defendant. 

------------------------------------------------------------------X 

 Defendant by its undersigned counsel, answers Plaintiffs, Trustees of the Westchester 

Putnam Counties Laborers’ Local No. 60 Heavy & Highway Benefit Funds, Welfare, Pension, 

Annuity, Education & Training, Legal Services, Industry Advancement and Political action 

Funds and the Laborers’ International Union of North America Local No. 60 (Collectively 

referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”) Summons and Complaint, as follows: 

1. Defendant states that it lacks the knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a 

Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 4 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 1 of 3
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs “1 - 10", “12", “13", “18", “21", 

23" and “28-29 

", of the Plaintiffs Summons and Complaint. 

2. Plaintiff admits the allegations contained in the Paragraph “11"of the 

Plaintiff’s 

Summons and Complaint. 

3. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs “14-17", “19", “22", 

 “24-26" an “30-35" of the Plaintiffs’ Summons and Complaint 

DEFENDANT’S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4. Lack of consideration. 

WHEREFORE, Persico demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff as follows: 

1. Dismissing the Plaintiff’s causes of action in there entirety; 

Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 4 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 2 of 3
1. Such other and further relief as to this Court seems just and 

proper including but not limited to interest, costs, expenses associated with prosecuting 

this 

action, including but not limited to attorneys fees. 

Dated: May 29, 2007 

 New Rochelle, New York 

 /s/ 

 ______________________________ 

 Clifford H. Greene 

 CLIFFORD H. GREENE & 

ASSOCIATES 

 467 North Avenue 

 New Rochelle, New York 10801 

 (914) 738-5992 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 Persico Contracting & Trucking, Inc. 

To: Karin Arrospide, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 258 Saw Mill River Road 

 Elmsford, NY 10523 

Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 4 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 3 of 3
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11098 Conference Calendar

JOE LOUIS BOOKER, JR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MIKE CATER, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-1999

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joe Louis Booker, Jr., Texas prisoner # 773213, is BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, Booker has brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Booker v. Worsham , No. 96- 40851 (5th Cir. November 29, 1996)(unpublished; dismissal ofNo. 98-11098 -2- appeal as frivolous in case dismissed by the district court as frivolous, so counts as two strikes); see Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Booker v. Elder , No. 4:96cv157 (E.D. Tex. October 8, 1996)(unpublished; adoption of magistrate judge’s recommendation that suit be dismissed as frivolous) and Booker v. Driscoll , No. 4:96cv317 (E.D. Tex. December 16, 1996)(same); see Adepegba , 103 F.3d at 387. One Texas district court has already dismissed a civil rights complaint filed by Booker on the three-strikes rule. See Booker v. Milloy , No. H-98-CV-2885 (S.D. Tex. November 16, 1998). Accordingly, Booker’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED, and he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). The appeal is DISMISSED. Booker has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.
IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 72426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23626]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-501]


Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Extension 
of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Cho at (202) 482-5075 or 
George McMahon at (202) 482-1167, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 30, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice of initiation of antidumping duty new shipper review 
on certain carbon steel welded pipe and tube from Turkey covering the 
period of review (POR) from May 1, 2004, through, April 30, 2005. See 
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review for the Period May 1, 
2004, through April 30, 2005, 70 FR 39487 (June 30, 2005). The 
preliminary results are currently due no later than December 27, 2005.

Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results

    Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, requires the Department to 
issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days 
of the date it was initiated. However, if the Department concludes that 
the case is extraordinarily complicated, it may extend the 180-day 
period to 300 days. Based on an allegation filed by the petitioner, we 
initiated a sales-below- cost investigation on September 28, 2005, and 
received the response to section D of the questionnaire on November 9, 
2005. In order to allow sufficient time to analyze the sales and cost 
data and to issue supplemental questionnaires, we must extend the time 
limit to complete the preliminary results of this review. Given the 
complexity of this case, and in accordance with section 
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, we are extending the time limit for 
issuing the preliminary results of review until April 26, 2006, which 
is 300 days after the date of initiation. The deadline for the final 
results of this review will continue to be 90 days after publication of 
the preliminary results.
    This extension is issued and published in accordance with section 
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777 (i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(I)(2).

    Dated: November 28, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-23626 Filed 12-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
Case 1:06-cv-15048-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
**IN THE SUPREME COURT**  **FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA**  No. DA 23
- 0137 GRANT ALAN WEST , Defendant and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee

. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Defendant and Appellant ’s Motion For Extension Of Time , and with good cause shown, Defendant and Appellant Grant West is hereby granted an extension of time until May 24, 2024 in which to prepare, file and serve Defendant and Appellan

t ’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 21 2024

03/21/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0137
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

June 29, 2015

Clerk

Court ofAppeals of Texas, First District

301 Fannin Street

Houston, TX 77002-2066

Re: Falcon Express International, Inc.

v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

No. 14-1225

(Your No. 01-10-01080-CV)

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

Jsr^counroFA COURT OF

HOUSTON, TBC^

Mi 02 2m

CLERK.

Dear Clerk:

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Sincerely,

**y- 'ZnZuAi

Scott S. Harris, Clerk
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 31 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 31 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. HORNE

No. 84 PC.

Case below: 40 N.C. App. 280.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 March 1979.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1668 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1668

To clarify that participants in the National Health Service Corps Loan 
   Repayment Program may be assigned to serve in pediatric inpatient 
                       mental health facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 23 (legislative day, May 22), 2019

  Mr. Tester introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify that participants in the National Health Service Corps Loan 
   Repayment Program may be assigned to serve in pediatric inpatient 
                       mental health facilities.

    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 ``Defending Access to Mental Health 
Care Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION OF PRIMARY CARE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AT PEDIATRIC 
              INPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES.

    (a) Health Professional Shortage Area Medical Facilities.--Section 
332(a)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254e(a)(2)(A)) 
is amended by inserting ``pediatric inpatient mental health facility 
that is certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,'' 
after ``community mental health center,''.
    (b) Assignment of Corps Members.--Section 338B(a) of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l-1(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``; and'' and inserting 
        ``;'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(2) an adequate supply of mental health professionals at 
        pediatric inpatient mental health facilities that are certified 
        by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; and''.
                                 <all>
```