alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30324

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KENYOUN GILYARD, also known as Pop

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:06-CR-50110-1

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenyoun Gilyard appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea

conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more

of cocaine base. He argues that the district court clearly erred by applying a

two-level enhancement for his possessing a firearm during a drug crime under

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). We review the district court’s firearm adjustment under

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30324

2

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) for clear error. United States v. Eastland, 989 F.2d 760, 770 (5th

Cir. 1993).

While there was no evidence that Gilyard carried a firearm when he sold

drugs, the evidence showed that Gilyard carried firearms and used them in

confrontations and gun battles relating to the drug conspiracy. Accordingly, the

district court’s application of the enhancement was not clearly erroneous. See

United States v. Wilson, 116 F.3d 1066, 1094 (5th Cir. 1997), vacated in part on

other grounds, 161 F.3d 256, 256 n.1 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Gilyard argues that the district court clearly erred by applying the fourlevel enhancement for his being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity

involving four or more participants pursuantto U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). He assumes

without admitting that the Government proved that he was a leader or organizer

of a criminal activity involving himself and his three co-defendants. He

maintains that the Government did not prove the existence of a fifth participant

in the criminal activity by a preponderance of the evidence.

The evidence before the district court showed that Ronald King and Shelby

King, as well as Gilyard and his three co-defendants, were participants in the

criminal activity. While there was no evidence that Gilyard organized or led

Ronald or Shelby King, this is immaterial as the enhancement was proper if

there were five or more participants in the criminal activity, and Gilyard

organized or led at least one other participant. See United States v. Okoli, 20

F.3d 615, 616 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s application of the

enhancement was not clearly erroneous. See id.

Gilyard argues thatthe district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights

by enhancing his advisory guidelines sentence range and sentence based upon

facts not admitted by him or found by a jury. As he concedes, this argument is

foreclosed. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.1.4

Exhibit A    SCHEDULE OF PARTNERS,  ALLOCATION OF PARTNERSHIP UNITS, PERCENTAGE INTERESTS  AND THE AGREED UPON VALUE OF NON-CASH CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS

|Date Admitted         |  | Name and address of partners                                                     |  | Value of non-
cash capital
contribution |            | Partnership
units issued |           | Approx.
Percentage
Interests |       | Federal ID #
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------------------------ | --------- | ---------------------------- | ----- | ------------
|05/22/1998            |  | Eagle Ridge Lease Company LLC
16100 N. Greenway-Hayden Loop
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 |  | $                                       | 1,198,750  |                          | 35,794    |                              | 0.45  | %           
|02/04/1997            |  | GTA LP, Inc. 14 North Adger's
Wharf Charleston, SC 29401                         |  | $                                       |           |                          | 7,868,789 |                              | 99.34 | %           
|02/04/1997            |  | GTA GP, Inc. 14 North Adger's
Wharf Charleston, SC 29401                         |  | $                                       |           |                          | 16,154    |                              | 0.20  | %           
|                      |  |                                                                                  |  |                                         |            |                          |           |                              |       |             
|Total Common OP Units |  |                                                                                  |  |                                         | 7,920,737  |                          | 100.00    | %                            |      
|                      |  |                                                                                  |  |                                         |            |                          |           |                              |       |             
|                      |  | GTA LP, Inc.
14 North Adger's Wharf
Charleston, SC 29401                         |  | $                                       | 20,000,000 |                          | 800,000   |                              | 100   | %           

1

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5868 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5868

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
    530 Claremont Avenue in Ashland, Ohio, as the ``Bill Harris Post 
                                Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BILL HARRIS POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 530 Claremont Avenue in Ashland, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Bill Harris Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Bill 
Harris Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
NO. 12-09-00326-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

AARON RAY WILLIAMS, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Aaron Williams appeals his conviction of burglary of a habitation. In his sole issue,

Appellant argues that the trial court’s judgment should be reformed to accurately reflect the 

proceedings below. We modify the judgment and affirm as modified.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal 

Code section 30.02, a second degree felony. Appellant pleaded guilty to the charged offense. 

The trial court subsequently found Appellant guilty of the charged offense. The trial court’s 

written judgment reflects that Appellant pleaded “true” to an enhancement and that the court 

found the enhancement to be “true.” The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at twenty 

years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

JUDGMENT

In his sole issue, Appellant asks that we reform the trial court’s judgment to accurately 

reflect the proceedings at trial. The State has joined Appellant in this request. 
The written judgment in the case at bar reflects that Appellant entered a plea of “true” to 

an alleged enhancement paragraph and that the trial court found that allegation to be “true.” 

However, the indictment on which this case is based does not contain an enhancement paragraph. 

Moreover, Appellant was not asked to enter a plea to any enhancement paragraph in this case. 

Finally, when pronouncing Appellant’s sentence, the trial court neither made an enhancement 

finding nor mentioned the existence of an enhancement paragraph. 

As a general rule, when an oral pronouncement of sentence and a written judgment differ, 

the oral pronouncement controls. Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2002). Further, when it has the necessary information before it, an appellate court may correct a 

trial court’s written judgment to reflect its oral pronouncement. Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 

287, 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Ingram v. State, 261 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2008, 

no pet.). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure expressly authorize us to modify the judgment 

of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

Under the circumstances presented in this case, the record is clear that the written 

reference to a plea and finding of “true” on an enhancement to Appellant’s burglary of a 

habitation conviction is erroneous. Therefore, we sustain Appellant’s sole issue.

DISPOSITION

We have sustained Appellant’s sole issue. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s 

judgment by deleting the plea and finding of “true” to the nonexistent enhancement paragraph. 

As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

SAM GRIFFITH

 Justice

Opinion delivered May 19, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NIOSH Program Update

Grady Calhoun, CHP

Director

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 149th Meeting

St Petersburg, FL

Thursday, December 8, 2022
Contracts, Staffing

 In process of hiring 3 health physicists due to 

retirement and job changes

 In process of hiring 1 Administrative Officer due to job 

change
IT Update (1 of 2)

 Able to process all cases manually

 We have achieved steady-state processing of dose 

reconstructions.

– This means that dose reconstructions are being completed 

at the same rate that new dose reconstruction referrals are 

received from the Department of Labor. We continue to 

achieve our goal of having more than 90% of all dose 

reconstructions completed within 5 months of receiving the 

last data required for completion.
IT Update (2 of 2)

 We continue to work on data management systems, e.g., Site 

Research Data Base (SRDB)
Workshops, Town Halls, Outreach

 Scheduled outreach meetings to NM, AZ and TN 

postponed due to local COVID Levels.

 Plan to reschedule these in-person meetings for 2023
Record Requests to Department of Energy

271 total outstanding

 12 between 61 and 120 days old

 2 between 121 and 180 days old

 8 greater than 180 days old
Case status report*

 55,350 cases to NIOSH from DOL

 53,227 returned to DOL

– 1,193 at NIOSH for dose reconstruction (DR)

– 930 administratively closed

 47,768 submitted DOL with DR

– 1,814 pulled from DR by DOL

– 3,645 pulled for Special Exposure Cohort (SEC)

*As of August 09, 2022
Probability of Causation Summary

 47,768 DRs sent for final adjudication

– 34,969 less than 50% - 73% of total

– 12,799 greater than 50% - 27% of total

– Typically, the cases have been between 25% and 30% at 50% 

or greater and 70% to 75% less than 50%. 
Active Cases

 1,180* active at NIOSH for DR

– 73 in the DR process

– 197 draft DR reports with claimants

– 910 cases preparing for DR

*11/11/2022
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Mobius Management Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 20032 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
E. Takiff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (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 results of operations
            of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.




/s/ Peter E. Takiff
-----------------------
Peter E. Takiff
Chief Financial Officer
September 9, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  scheduele  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from
     Pro-Fac Cooperative,  Inc. Form 10-Q for the period ended December 27, 1997
     and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statement.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                            0000202932
<NAME>                           Pro-Fac Cooperative, Inc.     
<MULTIPLIER>                     1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jun-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-27-1997
<CASH>                                           6,678
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,846
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    170,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               264,150
<PP&E>                                         267,424
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 616,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          185,422
<BONDS>                                        160,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              331
<PREFERRED>                                     81,738
<COMMON>                                         8,748
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   616,049
<SALES>                                        379,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               379,069
<CGS>                                          270,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  270,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                73,260
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,228
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,503
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,725
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony ROBINSON and Lillie M. Robinson, Defendants, United States Postal Service, Garnishee-Defendant Appellee.

No. 78-1512.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 25, 1978.

Edwin A. Smith, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Donald L. Beckner, U.S. Atty., Darrell D. White, Asst. U.S. Atty., Baton Rouge, La.,

Leonard Schaitman, Richard A. Olderman, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants.

Before RONEY, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT.

This is a commercial garnishment case which raises the issue of whether the United States Postal Service (USPS), as the statutory successor to the Post Office Department,1 retained the Post Office Department’s sovereign immunity from state garnishment proceedings.

The garnishment proceedings in the instant case were begun in the District Court of the State of Louisiana against the USPS. The ease was removed to the United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) (1970) and 39 U.S.C. § 409(a) (1970). The District Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash the writs of garnishment directed against the USPS and the Plaintiff appealed. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a motion to vacate the District Court’s judgment.

In view of the Defendant’s motion, we join the other Circuits2 and hold that the words “sue and be sued” in the Postal Service Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. § 401 (1970), constitute a waiver of immunity and permit garnishment proceedings against the USPS.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to vacate the District Court’s judgment is granted.

1

. Postal Reorganization Act, § 4(a) 39 U.S.C. § 201 note (1970).

2

. *See Beneficial Finance Co. of New York, Inc. v. Dallas,*571 F.2d 125 (2nd Cir. 1978); *General Electric Credit Corporation v. Smith,*565 F.2d 291 (4th Cir. 1977); *Goodman’s Furniture Company v. United States Postal Service,*561 F.2d 462 (3rd Cir. 1977); *May Department Stores Co. v. Williamson,*549 F.2d 1147 (8th Cir. 1977); *Standard Oil*v. *Starks,*528 F.2d 201 (7th Cir. 1975).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6964

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

WALTER RAY TAYLOR, JR., a/k/a 8-Ball, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:04-cr-00195-BO-1) 

Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 15, 2009 

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Walter Ray Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, 

Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Walter Ray Taylor, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence 

filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We find no 

reversible error and we thus affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. United States v. Taylor, No. 5:04-cr-00195-

BO-1 (E.D.N.C. May 20, 2009). 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
AGENDA 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Meeting of Dose Reconstruction Methods Work Group 

November 30, 2017, 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time 

Conference Phone: 1-866-659-0537; Participant Code: 9933701# 

Welcome and roll call 

1. Report on assuring consistency in dose reconstructions 

2. Path forward &/or Work Group recommendations for dose reconstruction case reviews 

Adjourn
### DcAt.. oP- ^A£tbA_H^rcb-J3i,_mi 

### A^tu<^G^^f^aLXxxj^YAcJl_A9.pi.c45^ tin. OH--1-3-0044*7 -cr^ 

### "TV\ca\ Ccaac-V no. b(*-,£80- A FILED IN-eOURT-ePeRIMINAtAPPEAtSMAY 20 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk |XAv| &QmjL-& /^ayva_iv\c&..L^_^ay)"vOS crnci X coaS Convict? o( o£ dQc. ri\ju-td£jt

receivedin^— COURT OFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

### MAY 26 2011 

## PUaSL anri -HvAnlc ^fa,

3>Vv Ctv-LlM, fr Aflcwvn fVVjS?S BfrrnoS ^KJ_Acmn^5l 

### ^Oo^h^^tatL^OiLLjJatL 

## SSSL-CCida^j^ox^dAi RaiVvUrVu) 7* 'T'to?^ Abe!Acosta,CteA / 

## )

- ^
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 13008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-997]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1741-DR]


Kansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Kansas (FEMA-1741-DR), dated February 1, 2008, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Kansas is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of February 1, 2008.

    Gove, Logan, Sheridan, Thomas, and Wallace Counties for Public 
Assistance.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared 
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and 
Households; 97.050 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to 
Individuals and Households--Other Needs, 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, 
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 08-997 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

January 18 , 2018.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00949- CR

IN RE DAVID STARKS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1540047



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 6, 2017, relator David Starks filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017 ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to declare the felony
conviction and judgment against him void.2

This court, as an intermediate court of appeals, has no jurisdiction over postconviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(a), (b) (West 2015); In re Briscoe , 230 S.W.3d 196, 196–97 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (“ Courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases ”) ; Ex parte
Martinez , 175 S.W.3d 510, 512–13 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding) (“Our law requires post-conviction applications for writs of habeas corpus, for felony cases in which the death penalty was not assessed, to be filed in the court of original conviction, made returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ”) (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(a), (b)); In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (“only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings”).
Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Busby and Wise

. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).