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

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________ No. 22

- 30491 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus Darius Williams, Defendant

— Appellant

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:20

- CR

- 145

- 1

___________________ ___________ Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Darius Williams appeals his 80

- month sentence for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Although the advisory guidelines range was 24

- 30 months of imprisonment, the district court applied an upward variance to

_____________________

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 1, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-30491 Document: 00516842804 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2023No. 22

- 30491

2 80 months of imprisonment. Williams challenges the procedural and subs tantive reasonableness of his sentence

. Williams preserved both of these issues, so we review under a deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 128 (2007). Williams offers a procedural argument that the district court should have provided more explanation during sentencing. He also argues that the Guidelines variance sentence was substantially unreasonable on its face and because it was supported only by evidence of general neighborhood conditions.
We find the district court did not procedurally abuse its discretion. The court informed both parties it was considering a variance and allowed each to present argument and evidence. The court then stated which evidence it found supported an above

- guidelines sentence , and the district court’s reasons addressed the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

. Accordingly, the sentence was rooted in the sentencing factors. See United States v. Bostic , 970 F.3d 607, 611 (5th Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Diaz Sanc hez , 714 F.3d 289, 294 (5th Cir. 2013).
We find the district court did not substant ively abuse its discretion. The district court established reliability and is not otherwise required to follow the rules of evidence at sentencing. United States v. Moton , 951 F.3d 639, 645 (5th Cir. 2020)

. Unadjudicated conduct, moreover, may be taken into account at sentencing where, as here, the evidence bears sufficient indicia of reliability. United States v. Parkerson , 984 F.3d 1124, 1129 (5th Cir. 2021). To the ex tent Williams argues general neighborhood conditions were imputed to him, only individualized evidence was cited by the district court as a basis for sentencing.
AFFIRMED

. Case: 22-30491 Document: 00516842804 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7031

KATHY REAVES, a/k/a Kathy Juanita Reaves,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KEVIN SCHWEDO, individually; THOMAS SCOTT WILKERSON, individually; 

ROBERT BAILES, individually; CHARLES M. DICKENS, individually; KEVIN 

THOMAS, individually; LARRY MCNEILL, individually; KATHRYN M. 

CREWS, individually; CATHY HAZELWOOD, individually; MARLBORO 

COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE; COUNTY OF MARLBORO; SOUTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, NLETS; BILL PHILLIPS, individually; 

CHARLES M. COATS, JR., SLED-CJIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:23-cv-01911-TLW)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathy Juanita Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & 

WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees Thomas Scott Wilkerson and 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7031 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Charles M. Coats, Jr.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7031 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Kathy Reaves appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 

motion.*

 We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of 

this motion. See Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501 (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order. Reaves v. Schwedo, No. 4:23-cv-01911-TLW (D.S.C. 

Oct. 10, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* To the extent Reaves seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing her complaint, that order is not 

properly before us in this appeal. See Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) 

(en banc) (“[A]n appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief does not bring up the underlying 

judgment for review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7031 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

927 COLE STREET, GOLDEN, COLORADO, and

2008 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER,

Defendants.

ORDER LIFTING STAY

This matter having come before the Court on the United States’ Unopposed 

Motion to Lift Stay, and the Court being fully apprised, it is hereby ORDERED that the 

stay granted in this case is hereby lifted.

SO ORDERED this _____ day of ____________, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________

PHILLIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Court Judge

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 70-1 filed 07/26/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of

1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 6, 2021

b0628 

# Order

Clerk July 6, 2021

161544

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161544

COA: 353104

Oakland CC: 10

- 232104

- FC

ANTONIO LIGGINS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 20, 2020 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendan t has failed to

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
II 

Calendar No. 296 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1539 

To designate the post office located at 309 East Linn Street, Marshalltown, 

Iowa, as the ‘‘Major Scott Nisely Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2007 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. HARKIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the post office located at 309 East Linn Street, 

Marshalltown, Iowa, as the ‘‘Major Scott Nisely Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MAJOR SCOTT NISELY POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The post office located at 309 

5 East Linn Street, Marshalltown, Iowa, shall be known and 

6 designated as the ‘‘Major Scott Nisely Post Office’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1539 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the post office referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Major Scott Nisely 

5 Post Office’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 296 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1539 

A BILL 

To designate the post office located at 309 East 

Scott Nisely Post Office’’. Linn Street, Marshalltown, Iowa, as the ‘‘Major 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### In re UNITED STATES PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY.

No. 8652.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 10, 1937.

W. W. Ñaman, of Waco, Tex., for petitioner.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. '

It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus applied for in the above numbered and entitled cause be denied.
Case 1:11-cr-00410-WJM Document 64 Filed 03/29/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cr-00410-WJM Document 64 Filed 03/29/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cr-00410-WJM Document 64 Filed 03/29/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24243]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and 
Engineering; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science 
and Engineering--(1115).
    Date and Time: October 17, 2008, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. (EDT).
    Place: The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 
1235, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Maggie Whiteman, Office of the Assistant 
Director, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and 
Engineering, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 
1105, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8900.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To discuss strategic priorities in 
computing. To advise NSF on the impact of its policies, programs and 
activities on the CISE community. To provide advice to the Assistant 
Director/CISE on issues related to long-range planning, and to form 
ad hoc subcommittees to carry out needed studies and tasks.
    Reason for Late Notice: Due to administrative complications and 
scheduling issues. However, there is necessity to proceed with this 
meeting at this time.
    Agenda: Report from the Assistant Director. Discussion of 
research, education, diversity, workforce issues in IT and long-
range funding outlook.

    Dated: October 8, 2008.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-24243 Filed 10-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 21, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.205 Time and Savings Deposits** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Wayne Francis MORSE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 9005.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 1, 1963.

Decided Oct. 7, 1963.

William J. McCarthy, Baltimore, Md. (Court-assigned counsel), for appellant.

Daniel W. Moylan, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Joseph D. Tydings, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and BRYAN and J.’ SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It appears that the District Judge granted a hearing on a number of issues raised by the appellant in a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The petition was far from clear, and apparently the Judge did not consider that there was an additional contention of the appellant in respect to his mental capacity to stand trial. The petition cited certain alleged facts in support of this contention, which seem to require at least the court’s consideration as to whether a hearing is due on this issue. We remand the case for this determination.

Remanded.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 9, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.8 Saving and Investment1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Exhibit 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Kim Ignatius,certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of TeliaSonera AB;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

4.     Thecompany’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

(a)           Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and proceduresto be designated under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;

(b)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in thisreport any change in the company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Thecompany’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’sauditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)           All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)          Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

| April 6, 2006 |   |   |   |                    |
|--------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|               |   | By:    |   | /s/ KIM  IGNATIUS       |
|               |   | Name:  |   | Kim Ignatius            |
|               |   | Title: |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-KSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000719488
<NAME> GRANDBANC, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,225
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,132
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     34,133
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            34,080<F1>
<LOANS>                                         61,300
<ALLOWANCE>                                        927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,673
<DEPOSITS>                                      96,725
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,564
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                496
<LONG-TERM>                                        200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              405
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 109,673
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,037
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  957
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   214
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,209
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,714
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,017
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,192
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       10
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    252
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         252
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        99
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,702
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,299
<RECOVERIES>                                       514
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  927
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               927
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>NOT BROKEN OUT IN KSB
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
224 La. 811

#### STATE ex rel. SCHWEHM v. MORRISON, Mayor of New Orleans et al.

No. 41163.

Supreme *Court of*Louisiana.

Feb. 15, 1954.

Richard Dowling, New 'Orleans,' for plaiiitiff-appellant. ■ " ' ' '

Henry B. Curtis, City Atty., Grady C. Durham, Asst. City Atty., New Orleans, for respondents-appellees.

MOISE, Justice.

The form of this action is a mandamus proceeding. The Court is considering an appeal from a-judgment of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, dismissing relator’s suit. The named defendants in the suit are the mayor and members of the Department of City Civil Service of New Orleans, Louisiana.

The prayer, of the petition is for the Court, in its judgment, to issue a rule to show cause:

> “Why your relator' should not have his status as ‘Captain of Detectives’ recognized by the said Defendants in their Official Capacity, and as such, he be put on the Roster of the Department of City Civil Service of New Orleans, Louisiana eligible to appointment in the Police Department of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana, to any vacancy which may now exist, or in the future exist in that grade.”

Relator was a captain of detectives in the Police Department of the City of New Orleans. His position, alone, was abolished in 1946. He was retained on the police force by demotion to the rank of Lieutenant of Detectives, for which position he received the emoluments of the office.

It would serve no useful purpose to trace the events leading up to the filing of this suit, but it is sufficient, to "show that here we do not have a suit of a discharged employee, and back sálary is not a factor in this litigation.

Article 7, section 10, of the Constitution of 1921 grants .appellate jurisdiction to this Court when the amount in controversy' is over $2,000. Wainer v. Kirn, 223 La,. 669, 66 So.2d 587; Lerner Shops of Louisiana, Inc. v. Reeves, 224 La. 33, 68 So.2d 748.

 For constitutional jurisdiction to be sustained, such must be shown by well pleaded'allegations. ' A stipiilation'by both *882sides in briefs for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on this 'Court is not well founded in law because the jurisprudence is well settled that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent nor by stipulation of the litigants or counsel. Adger v. Oliver, 222 La. 793, 64 So.2d 6; Castleberry v. Ethridge, 223 La. 466, 65 So.2d 138; Beene v. Pardue, 223 La. 417, 65 So.2d 897; Dupre v. Dupre, 224 La. 104, 68 So.2d 773.

For the reasons assigned and by virtue of the authority vested in this Court by Act No. 19 of 1912, LSA-R.S. 13:4441:

It is ordered that this appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the Parish of Orleans, provided that the record be filed in that court within thirty (30) days from the date this judgment shall become effective, otherwise, the appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of this court are to be paid by appellant.

FRUGÉ, J., takes no part.
Order filed March 1, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00119-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF D.R.A. AND A.R., children

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-04091J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of 

the parent-child relationship is at issue (“parental termination case”). The notice of 

appeal was filed February 1, 2012. The time for filing a contest to appellant’s affidavit of 

indigence has passed; therefore appellant is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 

20.1(a). The reporter’s record was due within 10 days after the notice of appeal was 

filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). The record has not been filed.

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought 

to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. See Tex. R. 
Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence the 

preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, if 

necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). 

Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely in this accelerated appeal, 

we issue the following order:

We order Cheryl Pierce, the deputy official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal on or before March 12, 2012. If Cheryl Pierce does not timely file the record as 

ordered, the court will issue an order requiring her to appear at a hearing to show cause 

why the record has not been timely filed and why she should not be held in contempt of 

court for failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine 

and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM