alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50404

MARCUS TYLER SHEFFIELD,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CV-385

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcus Tyler Sheffield, Texas prisoner # 2034529, was convicted in 2015 

by a jury of two counts of sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to 10 

years of imprisonment on both counts to run concurrently. He now moves for 

a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 application.

Sheffield argues that his statement to police during an interview was 

obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). He also 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50404 Document: 00515378203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
No. 19-50404

2

argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and to call 

Dr. William Rogers as a witness about his treatment of Sheffield for a disorder 

that affected Sheffield’s mental and physical development.

A COA may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When 

the district court rejects constitutional claims on their merits, a COA should 

issue only if the petitioner “demonstrate[es] that jurists of reason could 

disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that 

jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 

(2003); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

Sheffield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, his request 

for a COA is DENIED. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is 

also DENIED.

To the extent Sheffield argues that the district court erred in denying 

him appointed counsel, an order denying a motion for appointment of counsel 

in a habeas proceeding is not a “final order” that disposes of the merits of a 

habeas corpus proceeding for purposes of § 2253(c), and therefore is not subject 

to the COA requirement. Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). Because 

Sheffield has not shown that the district court erred in denying his request for 

appointment of counsel, we AFFIRM in part. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 

481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 

1985).

 Case: 19-50404 Document: 00515378203 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
IN THE 

## COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS RONNIE DWAYNE SANDERS VS. CAUSE NO. 05-98-00323-CR STATE OF TEXAS ORDER 

### On this 6th day ofJuly, 2000, came on to be considered the appellant'spro se motion to file an out-of-time pro se petition for discretionary review. AND SUCH MOTION is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

A TRUE COPY ATTEST: Troy C. Bennett, Jr., Clerk Court ofCriminal Appeals 

### Faye Koenig/Deputy Clerk PER CURIAM 

# n
#### APPEL v. ENNIS et al.

No. 18870.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 12, 1948.

For original opinion, see 34 So.2d 415.

Dart, Guidry & Price, of New Orleans (Taylor Caffery, of New Orleans, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant-appellee.

McGovern & McGovern, Qf New Orleans, for defendant-appellant Mrs. Ennis.

Leon F. Davison, of New Orleans, for defendant-appellee Ward C. Jensen.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this matter came from the First City Court of New Orleans. Our decree was rendered on March 15th, 1948. The application for rehearing was filed on March 27th, 1948.

Paragraph 1 of Rule X of this Court reads as follows: “Applications for rehearings must be presented within the delay allowed by law for such purpose, and filed with the Clerk. When filed too late the Clerk shall refuse to accept them.”

Act 16 of 1910 reads as follows: “That judgments rendered in the Courts of Appeal of the State shall become final and executory on the fifteenth calendar day after the rendition, except in cases of appeal from the City Courts of the City of New Orleans which shall be and become final on the sixth calendar day after rendition, in term time and out of term time, unless the last day shall fall on a legal holiday, when the delay shall be extended to the first day thereafter not a legal holiday; provided that in the interval parties in interest shall have the right to apply for rehearing; provided further, in the recess of the Court, the Court shall have the right to dispose at chambers of applications for rehearing.”

More than five calendar days, in fact more than five judicial days elapsed between the rendition of the decree and the filing of the application for rehearing.

Accordingly, the application for rehearing is not considered, having been filed too late.

Application for rehearing not considered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1997 for May Limited  Partnership 1984-3 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000765946
<NAME>                        May Limited Partnership 1984-3
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         283
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  330
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               613
<PP&E>                                         7,723
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   658
<SALES>                                        1,099
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,123
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                941
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            941
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   941
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  92.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  92.89
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (Nos.333-116655, 333-128903, and 333-135244) and in the related Prospectuses, and on Form S-4 (No.333-146695-1), and on Forms S-8 (Nos. 033-56384-99, 033-56386-99, 033-65790-99, 033-64349-99,333-13531-99, 333-36598-99, 333-48320-99, 333-48322-99, 333-53633-99, 333-81678-99, 333-81676-99,333-112378, and 333-134425) of Weatherford International Ltd. of our reports dated February 20,2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of WeatherfordInternational Ltd., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofWeatherford International Ltd., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPHouston, Texas
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 8, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.127 Finance Companies1** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-2509-RBJ-KLM

JANE KOEWING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CH2M HILL, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The parties are ordered to set an initial 

scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 no later than 45 days after all responsive pleadings are filed. Each 

party’s lead trial counsel shall attend the conference. The conference shall be held in Courtroom 

A-702, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties are 

directed to jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-4694 or by email at 

Jackson_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov to obtain a scheduling conference date. 

A meeting for the purposes of attempting to agree on a scheduling order and satisfying 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) should be held no later than 21 days before the 

proposed scheduling order is tendered. The proposed scheduling order, which should be 

prepared as described in Appendix F to the local rules, should be tendered no later than five days 

before the scheduling conference. The proposed scheduling order should set forth the parties’

agreement or their respective positions on the matters set forth in Appendix F. A copy of 

instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be 

downloaded from the Court’s website (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx).

DATED this 12th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02509-RBJ Document 4 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 16 

To provide for certain land to be held in trust for the Burns Paiute Tribe. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2008 

Mr. CRAIG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for certain land to be held in trust for the 

Burns Paiute Tribe. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LAND HELD IN TRUST FOR BURNS PAIUTE 

4 TRIBE. 

5 (a) LAND TO BE HELD IN TRUST.—The Secretary 

6 of the Interior shall take into trust for the benefit of the 

7 Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony 

8 of Oregon any real property located in Malheur County, 

9 Oregon, that is conveyed or otherwise transferred to the 

10 Secretary if, at the time of the conveyance or transfer, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 16 IS

1 no adverse legal claim (including an outstanding lien, 

2 mortgage, or tax) exists with respect to the property. 

3 (b) LAND TO BE PART OF RESERVATION.—Land 

4 taken into trust under subsection (a) shall be considered 

5 to be part of the Burns Paiute Reservation. 

6 (c) LAND INTO TRUST FOR GAMING.—Land taken 

7 into trust under subsection (a) shall be— 

8 (1) considered to be Indian lands (as defined in 

9 section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 

10 U.S.C. 2703)); and 

11 (2) eligible for class I gaming, class II gaming, 

12 and class III gaming (as defined in that section) in 

13 accordance with that Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
|Skip to ContentRelease Date: September 16, 2004Release dates | 
 Coded tables | 
 Historical dataCurrent release | 
 Screen reader | 
 PDF (450 KB)
L.227 Investment in Bank Personal Trusts and Estates
   Billions of dollars; amounts outstanding end of period, not seasonally adjusted                                                                                                                    
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Description
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003   Q1
2003   Q2
2003   Q3
2003   Q4
2004   Q1
2004   Q2
LineBank personal trusts and estates total assets asset
	1001.0
	1130.4
	1095.8
	960.7
	840.9
	819.6
	877.0
	885.0
	932.4
	955.0
	961.9
	1Bank personal trusts and estates total assets asset
	1001.0
	1130.4
	1095.8
	960.7
	840.9
	819.6
	877.0
	885.0
	932.4
	955.0
	961.9
	2
|
|Bank personal trusts and estates total assets asset                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|Bank personal trusts and estates total assets asset                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|Release dates | 
Coded tables | 
Historical dataCurrent release | 
Screen reader | 
PDF (450 KB)

Statistical releasesHome | Economic research and
dataAccessibility | Contact Us Last update: September 16, 2004
#### PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. v. WESTERN WOMEN’S CLUB et al.

No. 8700.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 7, 1938.

Cooper, White & Cooper, Hugh K. McKevitt, and Jack M. Howard, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

Byrne, Lamson & Jordan, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Western Club.

Louis Ferrari and George D. Schilling, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Bank of America.

Ernest J. Torregano and Charles M. Stark, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees Dohrmann Co.

Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to stipulation of counsel for respective parties, ordered appeal dismissed, that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and the mandate of this court issue forthwith.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02712-REB-KMT

LEROY DAMASIO FRESQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, and

CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a CORRECTIONAL

HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice

[#206]1

 filed July 8, 2015. After careful review of the motion and the file, I conclude that

the motion should be granted and this action should be dismissed with prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice is granted;

2. That any pending motion, including but not limited to CHC’s Partial Motion

To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief Based Upon Alleged Violations of

42 U.S.C. § 1983 [#187] filed January 16, 2015, is denied as moot;

3. That all pending pretrial deadlines are vacated;

4. That the combined Final Pretrial Conference/Trial Preparation Conference set

1

 “[#206]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a

specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this

convention throughout this order.

Case 1:11-cv-02712-REB-KMT Document 207 Filed 07/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
January 22, 2016, is vacated;

5. That the jury trial set to commence February 8, 2016, is vacated; and

6. That this action is dismissed with prejudice with the parties to pay their own

attorney fees and costs.

Dated July 9, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

2

Case 1:11-cv-02712-REB-KMT Document 207 Filed 07/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24325]



[[Page 60285]]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding The Meeting: Federal Maritime Commission.

Time And Date: October 15, 2008--10 a.m.

Place: 800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, 
Washington, DC.

Status: A portion of the meeting will be in Open Session and the 
remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session.

Matters To Be Considered

Open Session

    (1) Docket No. 06-06--EuroUSA Shipping, Inc., Tober Group, Inc., 
and Container Innovations, Inc. Possible Violations of Section 10 of 
the Shipping Act of 1984 and Commission's Regulations at 46 CFR 515.27.
    (2) Docket No. 06-09--Parks International Shipping, Inc., Cargo 
Express International Shipping Inc., et al., Possible Violations of 
Sections 8(a) and 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 and Commission's 
Regulation at 46 CFR Parts 515 and 520.

Closed Session

    (1) FMC Agreement No. 201170-001, LA/Long Beach Port Infrastructure 
& Environmental Cooperative Working Agreement.
    (2) Docket No. 08-05--City of Los Angeles, California, Harbor 
Department of the City of Los Angeles, Board of Harbor Commissioners of 
the City of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach, California, Harbor 
Department of the City of Long Beach, and the Board of Harbor 
Commissioners of the City of Long Beach--Possible Violations of 
Sections 10(b)(10), 10(d)(1) and 10(d)(4) of the Shipping Act of 1984.
    (3) Internal Administrative Practices and Personnel Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 
523-5725.

Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-24325 Filed 10-8-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,472
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                       537
<INVENTORY>                                     16,499
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,226
<PP&E>                                          22,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,199)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,269
<BONDS>                                          8,820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           135
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,880
<SALES>                                         22,694
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,694
<CGS>                                           11,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,359
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    34
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,170
<INCOME-TAX>                                       434
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                736
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       736
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.05


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.01

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 Quarterly Report of Sbarro, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Beaudrault, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2007



|                                                                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Peter Beaudrault                                                                                                    
|Peter Beaudrault Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

NOTE: A signed original of this certification 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.
EXHIBIT 32
 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  January 27, 2009
    By:
    /s/ ANDREW F. JACOBSAndrew F. Jacobs 
President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: January 27, 2009
    By:
    /s/ PHILLIP A. REINSCHPhillip A. ReinschExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DANIEL SAUNDERS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3566

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 20, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Highlands County; Peter F. Estrada, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Ransone v. State, 48 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2010).

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM,JJ., Concur.