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[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11048

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-00147-LGW-JEG

JIMMY BERNARD BARKLEY, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

WARDEN, FCC JESUP - MEDIUM,

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(May 26, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-11048 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

In 1991, a Middle District of Georgia jury found Jimmy Bernard Barkley 

guilty of conspiracy to use a person under eighteen years of age to possess with 

intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 861 (Count One), the 

substantive possession offense, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Count Two), and using a firearm 

in connection with the Count Two offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Three). The 

district court thereafter sentenced Barkley to concurrent life sentences on the first 

two counts and a consecutive term of sixty months on the third count. In 1998 and 

2011, Barkley filed unsuccessful motions in Middle District of Georgia to vacate 

his sentence and convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Invoking § 2255’s “savings clause,” Barkley sought relief once more in 

2013. This time, however, he petitioned the Southern District of Georgia for a writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Barkley claimed that his life sentences 

were invalid under the recent Supreme Court decision in Alleyne v. United States, 

570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013), because his Middle 

District of Georgia indictment failed to specify, and the jury failed to find, the 

amount of crack cocaine underpinning the offenses in Counts One and Two. He 

also claimed that his § 2255 proceedings in the Middle District of Georgia should 

be reinstated because the court failed to consider all of his constitutional claims.

The District Court denied Barkley § 2241 relief on the ground that Alleyne is 

not retroactive. It also declined to entertain Barkley’s claim about the § 2255 

Case: 14-11048 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

proceedings in the Middle District of Georgia because the Southern District of 

Georgia was not the proper venue for the claim. Barkley appeals the court’s 

decisions. We affirm.

The District Court ruled correctly in holding that Alleyne is not retroactive 

and therefore could provide Barkley no relief from his convictions on Counts One 

and Two. See, e.g., United States v. Olvera, 775 F.3d 726, 730 (5th Cir. 2015) 

(“Alleyne does not apply retroactively. This decision accords with that of every 

circuit to have examined the issue, none of which has decided that Alleyne is 

retroactive.” (footnote omitted)).

The court also ruled correctly in declining to entertain Barkley’s claim 

regarding his first § 2255 proceeding. The Middle District of Georgia is the proper 

venue for that claim.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-11048 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 3 of 3
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(I)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-bearing, revocable license to U.S. Patent No. 5,983,557, issued November 16, 1999, entitled “Lethal Mosquito Breeding Container,” U.S. Patent No. 6,185,861 issued February 13, 2001, entitled “Lethal Mosquito Breeding Container,” U.S. Patent No. 6,389,740, issued May 21, 2002, entitled “Lethal Mosquito Breeding Container,” and foreign rights to SpringStar, Inc., with its principal place of business at 17669 128th Place NE., Woodinville, WA 98072. 

# ADDRESSES:

Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664. For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, both at telefax (301) 619-5034. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see                     **ADDRESSES**                    ).                 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-18020 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Virgil WASHINGTON, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 63461.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 19, 1994.

S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John R. Watson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree robbery, § 569.020, two counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015, first degree assault, § 565.050, and unlawful possession of a eoncealable firearm, § 571.070 as a prior, persistent and class X offender. The court sentenced him to a prison term of five years on the concealed weapon charge, to be served concurrently with concurrent life sentences on each of the other counts. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an eviden-tiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2022

- 2884

_____________________________
J EFFERY W HITMAN C ARMICHAEL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. February 28, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J., and R OBERTS and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
### No. 04

- 15

- 00466

- CV

Felix Luera, Jr. and Bianca Luera

V.

Basic Energy Services, Inc. and Basic Energy Services, L.P. In the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas

A PPELLEES ’ M OTION TO D EFER B RIEFING ON THE M ERITS P ENDING D ISPOSITION OF A PPELLEES ’ M OTION TO D ISMISS

T O THE H ONORABLE C OURT OF A PPEALS : Appellees Basic Energy Services, Inc. and Basic Energy Services, L.P. (collectively, “Basic Energy”) move the Court to defer briefing on the merits in this matter until the Court has ruled on the Appellees’ Motio n to Dismiss.

P ROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 24, 2015, Appellees filed their Motion to Dismiss this appeal on the ground that Appellants’ notice of appeal was untimely. In particular, the judgment they appeal from was signed on November 4, 2014, and yet they did not file their notice of appeal until July 14, 2015. The Appellees ’ Motion to Dismiss remains pending. ACCEPTED 04-15-00466-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/28/2015 4:13:38 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKA PPELLEES ’ MOTION TO DISMISS 2 The Court has granted an extension of the deadline for Appellant s to file their brief; it is now due on N o vember 20,
2015 . The Appellees’ brief will be due 30 days after Appellants’
brief is filed. If the Motion to Di smiss is granted, the Court will not find it necessary to address the merits of the appeal. Thus, requiring the parties to submit full briefs on the merits before
the M otion to D ismiss is disposed of may result in a needless expenditure of resources by the parties and the Court.

WHEREFORE , Appellees request that the Court de fer briefing on the merits until it disposes of the Appellees ’ Motion
to Dismiss

. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ken Fields

___________ Ken Fields Texas State Bar No. 06975350 kfields@mcv

- law.com

M C K I BBEN & V ILLARREAL , L.L.P. 1100 Tower II 555 N. Carancahua Corpus Christi, Texas 784 01

- 0841 361

- 882

- 6611 361

- 883

- 8353 (telefax)

Attorneys for Appellees Basic Energy Services, Inc. and Basic Energy Services,
L.P.A PPELLEES ’ MOTION TO DISMISS 3 C ERTIFICATE OF S ERVICE This is to certify tha t a cop y of the foregoing instrument

was served on the other counsel of record, in th e manner indicated below, on October 28 , 2015

.

/s/ Ken Fields

____

_______ Ken Fields

By e

- filing and telefax

, (361) 985

- 0601 :
Mr. Russell W. Endsley THE LAW OFF ICES OF THOMAS J. HENRY 521 Starr Street Corpus Christi, Texas 7840 1 Attorney f

or Appellants

By e

- filing and telefax

, 210

- 979

- 7810 : Ricardo R. Reyna Brock Person Guerra Reyna, P.C. 17339 Redland Road San Antonio, Texas 78247 Co

- counsel on appea l for Appellees
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Under
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Samsonite Corporation (the "Company") for the annual period ended January 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|By     | /s/MARCELLO BOTTOLI                   | 
|------ | ------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Marcello Bottoli                      | 
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer and President | 
|Date:  | May 31, 2007                          | 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be
deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                        Correctional Services Corporation

                            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 Correctional Services Corporation, (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James F. Slattery, Chief Executive 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.



  /s/ Bernard A. Wagner
---------------------------------
Bernard A. Wagner
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Bernard A. Wagner and will be retained by Correctional Services
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### Gerald DOSS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 67375.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 5, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 7, 1996.

Robert S. Adler, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Cheryl A. Caponegro, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and RHODES, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the motion court’s judgment denying Rule 24.035 relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Roundtable on International Financial Reporting Standards on Monday, August 4, 2008 beginning at 1 p.m. 

The Roundtable will take place in the Auditorium of the Commission's headquarters at 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC. The Roundtable will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 12:30 p.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. 

The roundtable will consist of an open discussion on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and an update on IFRS developments, including the experience with use of IFRS during the recent period of market turmoil. The roundtable will be organized as two panels, each consisting of investors, issuers, auditors and other parties with experience in IFRS reporting. 

For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400. 

Dated: July 28, 2008. 

Jill M. Peterson, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–17600 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 11048 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:13

- cv - 00147

- LGW

- JEG

JIMMY BERNARD BARKLEY, Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus WARDEN, FCC JESUP

- MEDIUM, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________ ( May 26, 2015 ) Before TJOFLAT , MARTIN and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-11048 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 1 of 32 In 1991, a Middle District of Georgia jury found Jimmy Bernard Barkley guilty of conspiracy to use a person under eighteen years of age to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine base , 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 861 (Count One), t he substantive possession offense, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Count Two), and using a firearm in connection with the Count Two offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Three). The
district c ourt thereafter sentenced Barkley to concurrent life sentences on the first
two c ounts and a consecutive term of sixty months on the third count. In 1998 and 2011, Barkley filed unsuccessful motions in Middle District of Georgia to vacate his sentence and conviction s under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
I nvoking § 2255’s “savings clause,” Barkley sought relief once more in
2013. This time, however, he petitioned the So uthern District of Georgia for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

. Barkley claimed that his life sentences were invalid under the recent Supreme Court decision in Alley ne v. United States , 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. C t. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013), because his Middle District of Georgia indictment failed to specify, and the jury failed to find, the amount of crack cocaine underpinning the offenses in Counts One and Two. He also claimed that his § 2255 proceedings in the Middle Distric t of Georgia should be reinstated because the court failed to consider all of his constitutional claims

. The District Court denied Barkley § 2241 relief on the ground that Alleyne is not retroactive. It also declined to entertain Barkley’s claim about th e § 2255

Case: 14-11048 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 2 of 33 proceedings in the Middle District of Georgia because the Southern District of Georgia was not the proper venue for the claim. Barkley appeals the court’s decisions. We affirm. The District Court ruled correctly in holding that Alleyne is not r etroactive and therefore could provide Barkley no relief from his convictions on Counts One and Two. See, e.g. , United States v. Olvera , 775 F.3d 726, 730 (5th Cir. 2015) (“

Alleyne does not apply retroactively. This decision accords with that of every ci rcuit to have examined the issue, none of which has decided that Alleyne is retroactive.” (footnote omitted)).
The court also ruled correctly in declining to entertain Barkley’s claim regarding his first § 2255 proceeding. The Middle District of Georgia is the proper venue for that claim.
AFFIRMED. Case: 14-11048 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 3 of 3
#### RIEDEL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Respondent, v. Harold FLORA and John Boyce, Appellants.

No. 69230.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Jan. 28, 1997.

Gerald Michael Cunne, Clayton, for appellants.

Richard C. Witzel, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Harold Flora and John Boyce d/b/a F & B Petroleum Co., appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Respondent, Riedel Environmental Services, Inc., in a breach of contract action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Order filed April 18, 2013 Withdrawn, Motion Granted; Appeal Reinstated 

and Order filed May 9, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00167-CR

____________

MARK BRIAN MORRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 209th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1356410

ORDER

On April 18, 2013, this Court issued an order abating the appeal and 

directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to appoint counsel on appeal. 

Today, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal because counsel has 

been appointed.
The motion is granted. Our order of April 18, 2013, is withdrawn. The 

appeal is reinstated. The reporter’s record is due June 10, 2013.

PER CURIAM
#### Kathleen HARTNETT, Appellant, v. Fletcher D. SAPP, et al., Respondents.

No. WD 50414.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 7, 1995.

C. John Forge, Jr., Independence, for appellant.

Michael R. Lawless, Overland Park, Kan., for respondents.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Kathleen Hartnett, personal representative of the estate of John Hartnett, deceased, *897appeals the judgment of the Jackson County Circuit Court, entered after a bench trial, (a) dismissing Fletcher Sapp and Ronald Sapp as statutory trustees for Metro Petroleum Equipment Co., Inc., and substituting Metro as the proper party defendant, and (b) awarding her judgment for $119,000 plus interest and costs against Metro Petroleum Equipment Co., Inc. Hartnett complains that the court erred in dismissing the statutory trustees and substituting the corporate entity as the party defendant. We affirm.

Discerning no jurisprudential value to publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rule 84.16(b).
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 1 of 18 Pg ID 196
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 2 of 18 Pg ID 197
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 3 of 18 Pg ID 198
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 4 of 18 Pg ID 199
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 5 of 18 Pg ID 200
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 6 of 18 Pg ID 201
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 7 of 18 Pg ID 202
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 8 of 18 Pg ID 203
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 9 of 18 Pg ID 204
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 10 of 18 Pg ID 205
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 11 of 18 Pg ID 206
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 12 of 18 Pg ID 207
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 13 of 18 Pg ID 208
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 14 of 18 Pg ID 209
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 15 of 18 Pg ID 210
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 16 of 18 Pg ID 211
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 17 of 18 Pg ID 212
5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 33 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 18 of 18 Pg ID 213
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHTENAW COUNTY et al.,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 09-12471

Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [72]

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [72]. This matter came

on for a hearing on May 2, 2011.

For the reasons stated on the record and in the briefs, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [72] is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge

Dated: May 4, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

May 4, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/MICHAEL L. WILLIAMS 

Relief Case Manager

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 82 Filed 05/04/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1313