alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-14894

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:98-cr-00126-LC-MD-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL A. BLANKENSHIP,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(September 14, 2012)

Before MARCUS, EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Blankenship, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the

Case: 11-14894 Date Filed: 09/14/2012 Page: 1 of 3 
denial of his “Motion to Set-Aside Sentence and to Re-sentence.” In his motion in

district court, he raised challenges to his sentence (such as, whether certain

enhancements could apply); but he has raised entirely different arguments on

appeal, which instead challenge trial events and guilt (such as, insufficient

evidence).

Although Blankenship now raises different issues on appeal, the district

court, by its denial, still entered an order fully resolving his “Motion to Set-Aside

Sentence and to Re-sentence”; and this order is final and appealable. We do have

jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

This principle guides us in part: “a party seeking to raise a claim or issue on

appeal must plainly and prominently so indicate. Otherwise, the issue -- even if

properly preserved at trial -- will be considered abandoned.” United States v.

Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003).

A review of the record and case history reveals that the district court could

not have considered Blankenship’s “Motion to Set-Aside” as a § 2255 motion

because he did not have the required permission to file a second or successive

motion. The district court’s authority to consider the motion was limited by 18

U.S.C. § 3582, and none of the exceptions under § 3582 applied to Blankenship’s

motion. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion. Moreover,

2

Case: 11-14894 Date Filed: 09/14/2012 Page: 2 of 3 
Blankenship has abandoned the arguments raised in his “Motion to Set-Aside,” as

he has not argued them on appeal. His arguments on appeal are completely apart

from the claims he argued in his motion before the district court.

Based on a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-14894 Date Filed: 09/14/2012 Page: 3 of 3
#### Wesley E. HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47546.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 21, 1993.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BERREY and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2409

BARTON J. ADAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF WEST

VIRGINIA, Board of Osteopathy; ROBERT FOSTER,

individually and in his capacity as President/

Member of the Board of Osteopathy; RODENY

FINK, D.O., individually and in his capacity

as Vice President/Member of the Board of

Osteopathy; JOSEPH E. SCHREIBER, D.O., individually in his capacity as a Secretary/Member

of the Board of Osteopathy; KAY CHERENKO, individually and in her capacity as a member of

the Board of Osteopathy; BEA HARVEY, individually and in his capacity as a President/

Member of the Board of Osteopathy; PAUL

KLEMAN, individually and in his capacity as a

President/Member of the Board of Osteopathy,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DOES 1-100, individuals; DOE ENTITIES 1-100,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CA-96-200-5)
2

Submitted: January 5, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barton J. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. James J.A. Mulhall, SHUMAN,

ANNAND, BAILEY, WYANT & EARLES, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

complaint with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Adams v.

State of West Virginia, No. CA-96-200-5 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 19, 1998).

Accordingly, we deny Appellees’ motions to supplement the record

and to strike Appellant’s reply brief as moot. We also deny Appellant’s request for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 06, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 06, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A0806. CLARISSA KESSLER HALDEMAN v. ROBERT HALDEMAN II et al..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1642]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Cancer Institute National Cancer Advisory Board 
(NCAB) Activities and Agenda Subcommittee.
    The Committee Management Office, National Cancer Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, Executive Plaza North, Room 630E, 9000 
Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (301/496-5708), will provide 
summaries of the meeting and a roster of the subcommittee members upon 
request.
    Individuals who plan to attend the open session and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact Ms. Carole Frank, Committee Management 
Specialist, at 301/496-5708 in advance of the meeting. Attendance by 
the public will be limited to space available.

    Committee Name: NCAB Activities and Agenda Subcommittee.
    Date: January 30, 1996.
    Place: National Cancer Institute, Via telephone conference, 6130 
Executive Blvd. EPN, Conference Rm. 640, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Open: 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: Discussion of future NCAB agenda items and other topics 
of interest, future of possible mini-symposia, periodic information 
updates, and organization of NCAB meetings and subcommittee 
meetings.
    Closed: 2:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: Discussion of the participation of individual employees 
in support of NCAB activities.
    Contact Person: Marvin R. Kalt, Ph.D., National Cancer 
Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd., EPN, Conference Rm. 640, Rockville, 
MD 20852, Telephone: 301-496-5147.

    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in Section 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. The discussions could 
reveal personal information including consideration of personnel 
qualifications and performance, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is appearing less than 15 days before the scheduled 
meeting due to the partial shutdown of the Federal Government.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, 
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, 
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control.)

    Dated: January 23, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-1642 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 08-CR-20604-DT

RODERICK RHODES

Defendant.

___________________________/ 

ORDER FOR NOTICE OF INTENDED OBJECTION

On February 27, 2009, defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge Scheer for a

change of plea as to Counts 1 through 4 of the Indictment. The Magistrate Judge

submitted his Report and Recommendation (R&R) on March 2, 2009 recommending the

court accept the Defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts 1 through 4. Any objection to the

R&R falls due on March 16, 2009. The court has reviewed the R&R and desires to act

expeditiously if no objection is to be made. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that not later than March 6, 2009, each party submit a statement

indicating only whether or not that party intends to state a objection to the R&R. If each

party indicates that no objection is to be filed, the court will accept the pleas.

s/ Robert H. Cleland

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 3, 2009

2:08-cr-20604-RHC-DAS Doc # 27 Filed 03/03/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 88
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\Lisa's Folder\08-20604.RHODES.NOTICE OF OBJECTION.wpd

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on

this date, March 3, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/ Lisa Wagner

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cr-20604-RHC-DAS Doc # 27 Filed 03/03/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 89
#### Walter GLADNEY, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 19421.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Dec. 20, 1994.

Talat Bashir, St. Louis, for movant-appel-lant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PREWITT, Judge.

Movant-Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree assault. After the plea was accepted and he was sentenced, he filed a motion under Rule 24.035, seeking post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of appointed counsel. Initially his motion was denied and upon appeal this court reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings in accordance with *Luleff v. State,*807 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1991). *See Gladney v. State,*853 S.W.2d 423 (Mo.App.1993).

Following remand movant, with appointed counsel, filed an amended motion. Thereafter, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment denying the motion. Movant appeals, contending his counsel for the criminal case failed to investigate it and did not properly communicate with him, leading to “an involuntary, unknowing and unintelligent plea of guilty.”

Review of such a motion is “limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the trial court are clearly erroneous.” Rule 24.035®. Under that standard the trial court’s determination must be affirmed. The judgment was based on find*944ings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

GARRISON, P.J., and CROW, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 126 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16513]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--E&P Technology Cooperative

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 6, 1996, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), E&P Technology Cooperative, a 
non-profit joint research and development venture, has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) 
the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed 
for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery 
of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of 
the parties are: BP Oil Company, Cleveland, OH; The British Petroleum 
Company plc, London EC2M 7 BA, ENGLAND; BP Exploration Operating 
Company Limited, Poole Dorset BH16 6LS, ENGLAND; BP Exploration & Oil 
Inc., Cleveland, OH; Chevron Corporation, San Francisco, CA; Chevron 
Petroleum Technology Company, Houston, TX; Mobil Corporation, Fairfax, 
VA; Mobile Technology Company, Fairfax, VA; Texaco, Inc., White Plains, 
NY; and Texaco Group Inc., White Plains, NY. The objectives of the 
venture are as follows: The members of the program intend to support 
research activities that will create or drive the creation of new 
technologies to benefit their businesses. Examples of such research 
include innovations in drilling, recovery technology and data 
management. They expect the products of their research will materially 
impact business performance by lowering costs, shortening cycle time 
and/or improving recovery. In general, the members also intend to 
identify innovative approaches and attract and recruit the best talent 
in a variety of disciplines to solve the challenges of the future. It 
is the intention of the members to make the results of their projects 
available to others in the industry.
    Information regarding participating in the Group may be obtained 
from Richard J. Goetsch, Esq., BP Oil Company, Terry Calvani, Esq., on 
behalf of Chevron Corporation, Carter B. Simpson, Esq., Mobil 
Corporation, and Robert D. Wilson, Esq., Texaco, Inc.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-16513 Filed 6-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of A.M., a Child

No. 06-18-00012-CV

Appeal from the 307th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2017-617-

DR). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated her inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 22, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 32


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



The undersigned officers of Northwest Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") hereby
certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

1.      the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
        2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
        13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

2.      that as of the date of this statement, the information contained in the
        Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and result of operations of the Company.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



September 29, 2003                      /s/ William J. Wagner
-------------------                     --------------------------------------
Date                                    William J. Wagner
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer


September 29, 2003                      /s/ William W. Harvey, Jr.
-------------------                     --------------------------------------
Date                                    William W. Harvey, Jr.
                                        Senior Vice President, Finance and
                                        Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Northwest Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Northwest Bancorp,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
1 E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(1) requires that a motion for reconsideration be filed within 10 days (14

days effective December 1, 2009) after entry of the judgment or order from which appeal is taken.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-cr-20484

Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

D-1 ANDRE CLIFTON WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 17.) On September

26, 2008, Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g). This Court entered final judgment against Defendant on December10, 2008. (Dkt. No.

16.) Defendant filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration on December 28, 2009.

“[A] motion for reconsideration or rehearing of a final judgment in a criminal case must be

filed within the period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1) unless the local rules of the district court

provide otherwise. Effectively, this means that criminal defendants must file such motions within

ten days of the judgment entry, Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), and the government must file such

motions within thirty days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(B)(i).”1

 United States of America v. CorreaGomez, 328 F.3d 297, 299 (6th Cir. 2003). 

Defendant’s motion, filed on December 28, 2009, is therefore untimely. Accordingly,
2

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 12, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

February 12, 2010.

s/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS AMENDED, AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Consorteum Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter the "Company")
hereby certifies to such officer's knowledge that the Company's Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Quarterly Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever.


Date: February 16, 2010                       /s/ Craig A. Fielding
------------------------                       ---------------------------------
                                               Name: Craig A. Fielding
                                               Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                      -32-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY

COMPANY, also known as EMC

INSURANCE COMPANIES,

Plaintiff 08-cv-15276

v. Judge Denise Page Hood

HAMED AL-MASHHADI, ADEL

KOBEISSI, SCHAEFER and PURITAN, INC., 

and SATTER AL-BAYDANNY also known as 

SATAAR AL-BAYDANY,

Defendants.

 /

JUDGMENT

This action having come before the Court and pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion and

Order entered on this date,

Accordingly, 

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants.

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF COURTS

Approved: By: s/ Wm. F. LEWIS 

Deputy Clerk

s/ DENISE PAGE HOOD 

DENISE PAGE HOOD

United States District Judge

Dated: August 24, 2009

Detroit, Michigan

2:08-cv-15276-DPH-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 08/24/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 511
#### David W. CRITES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 69905.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 15, 1996.

Barbara Hoppe, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Joiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, David W. Crites (“defendant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Washington County denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the decision of the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum explaining the reasons for our *531decision is provided solely for the use of the parties involved.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellant 

 v. 

KHALIL A. BLAKENEY, 

 Appellee 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 37 MAP 2014 

Appeal from the Order of the Montgomery 

County Court of Common Pleas, dated 

March 21, 2014, exited March 24, 2014, at 

No. CP-46-CR-0002521-2013 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2015, the Order of the Court of Common 

Pleas is hereby AFFIRMED. See Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Latayo Raymond CLARK, Appellant.

No. 02-4130.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 7, 2003.

Decided Aug. 14, 2003.

Before BOWMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Clark challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), 846. The district court sentenced Clark to 120 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Clark’s counsel has moved to withdraw under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying Clark’s motion for a downward departure.

The district court’s decision not to grant the downward departure was clearly discretionary; thus, the decision is unreviewable. *See United States v. VanHouten,*307 F.3d 693, 696 (8th Cir.2002) (discretionary decision not to depart from Guidelines is unreviewable on appeal absent unconstitutional motive, unless district court erroneously concluded it lacked authority to depart).

Following careful review of the record, we find no other nonfrivolous issues. *See Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We also deny *611Clark’s pending motion and grant counsel’s motion to -withdraw.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.