alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL DOWELL,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 19

- 35110

D.C. No. 3:18

- cv

- 01939

- BR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Samuel Dowell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his

“E xtraordinary W rit Challenge

. ” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo, see United States v. Walgren, 885 F.2d 1417, 1420 (9th Cir.

1989), and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 19

- 35110

Dowell contends that the district court erred in concluding that he was

attempting to attack his conviction . Rather, he argues that he was seeking a “class

action civil writ” under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 based on the un constitutionality of the

federal statutes proscribing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2250

- 22 60. As an

initial matter, Dowell points to no authority suggesting that 28 U.S.C. § 1651 is a

proper vehicle for such an action. Moreover, child pornography is n ot protected by

the First Amendment

, s ee New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747, 764 (1982) , and the

C ommerce Clause authorizes C ongress to criminalize its intrastate possession, see

United States v. Sullivan

, 797 F.3d 623

, 631

- 32 (9th Cir. 20 15 ) . The district court

,

therefore

, properly denied relief

.

AFFIRMED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000840401
<NAME>                        ACCUHEALTH, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              84,581
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,404,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,874,452)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,719,256
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,819,232
<PP&E>                                           6,100,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,285,183)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,078,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,176,664
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         13,500
<COMMON>                                            36,445
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,459,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,078,029
<SALES>                                          8,623,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,623,017
<CGS>                                            5,138,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,138,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,980,437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 257,072
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    246,906
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                246,906
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       246,906
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .07
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY C. DIXON, #138238, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0757-WS-B

:

GWEN MOSELY, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this

file deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there having been no

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion

of this Court. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed

Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2) be and is hereby DENIED. It is

further ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE this 3rd day of March, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00757-WS-B Document 9 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**Rule 13a-14(a)/15(d)-14(a) Certification of Principal Accounting Officer**
I, Joseph W. Meyers, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K/A ofPierre Foods, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. /s/ Joseph W. Meyers Joseph W. Meyers*Vice President, Finance*(Principal Accounting Officer)
Date: October 15, 2004
E-3
Of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. *

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-2505

JOHN T. SHEEHAN, JR., EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

JOHN T. O'BRIEN, JR., JAMES T. CONNELL,

Defendants, Appellants,

v.

ANDREW S. RICHARDSON, TRUSTEE OF NEWPORT CREAMERY, INC.

Plaintiff, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, Senior U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Lipez, Circuit Judge,

Campbell and Bowman, Senior Circuit Judges. *

Kevin D. Heitke for appellants.

John Boyajian with whom Boyajian, Harrington & Richardson

was on brief for appellee.

June 23, 2006
-2-

Per Curiam. After reviewing the parties' arguments in their

briefs and during oral argument, we are satisfied that the district

court correctly analyzed the case in its published memorandum and

order. Sheehan v. Richardson, 315 B.R. 226 (D.R.I. 2004). On

appeal, we find no arguments requiring our further elucidation. We

therefore affirm the entry of summary judgment for the appellee

substantially for the reasons set out in the district court's

memorandum and order.

So ordered.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LIONEL GUSTAFSON, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

ADRIAN JOHNS, etc., et al., ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-00352-CG-C

)

Defendants, )

) THREE-JUDGE COURT

and )

)

SETH HAMMETT, LOWELL )

BARRON, and HANK SANDERS, )

)

Defendant-Intervenors. )

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the order entered this date holding that the instant suit is barred by res

judicata, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that judgment is entered in favor of

all defendants and against the plaintiffs and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 2006.

/s/ R. Lanier Anderson, III 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

 /s/ Mark Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00352-CG-C Document 243 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the 

Southern District of Alabama

United States of America )

)

v. ) Case No. 05-00267-KD

)

JAMES PATRICK PREYEAR )

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of the defendant James Patrick Preyear made under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a

reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

 DENIED. X GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment

(as reflected in the last judgment issued) of 281 months is reduced to 225 months.

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 36 Amended Offense: 34 

Criminal History Category: IV Criminal History: IV 

Previous Guideline Range: 262 to 327 months Amended Guideline Range: 210 to 262 months 

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

X The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the

defendant at the time of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced

sentence is comparably less than the amended guideline range.

 Other (explain): 

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

Order Date: August 3, 2009 Judge’s signature

Effective date: United States District Judge

(if different from order) Printed name and title

Case 1:05-cr-00267-KD-B Document 535 Filed 08/04/09 Page 1 of 1
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 23 , 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00606

- CV

CHARLOTTE GATES , Appellant

V.
PLUM CREEK TOWNHOMES , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1135916

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a final judgment signed July 22 , 2019. Appellant ’s brief
was due November 20 , 2019. No brief or motion for extension of time to file the
brief was filed.

On De cember 3 , 2019 , the court ordered appellant s to file a brief by December
2 0 , 2019

. We cautioned that if appellant s failed to comply with our order, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No brief or
motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed.2

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant
##### 



POWER OF ATTORNEY
  th
 MERCK & CO., Inc.By /s/ Richard T. ClarkRichard T. Clark(Chief Executive Officer and President) /s/ Richard T. Clark
    
    Chief Executive Officer and PresidentRichard T. Clark
    
    (Principal Executive Officer; Director)/s/ Judy C. Lewent
    
    Executive Vice President & Chief Financial OfficerJudy C. Lewent
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)/s/ Richard C. Henriques, Jr.
    
    Vice President, ControllerRichard C. Henriques, Jr.
    
    (Principal Accounting Officer)
  /s/ Lawrence A. Bossidy
    
    /s/ Thomas E. ShenkLawrence A. Bossidy
    
    Thomas E. Shenk/s/ William G. BowenWilliam G. Bowen
    
    Anne M. Tatlock/s/ Johnnetta B. Cole
    
    /s/ Samuel O. ThierJohnnetta B. Cole
    
    Samuel O. Thier/s/ Wendell P. WeeksWilliam B. Harrison, Jr.
    
    Wendell P. Weeks/s/ William N. Kelley
    
    /s / Peter C. WendellWilliam N. Kelley
    
    Peter C. Wendell/s/ Rochelle B. LazarusRochelle B. Lazarus
Slip Op. 99 -94

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 

:

AMERICAN SILICON TECHNOLOGIES, :

ELKEM METALS COMPANY, GLOBE :

METALLURGICAL, INC., and :

SKW METALS & ALLOYS, INC., :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. : Before: MUSGRAVE, JUDGE

:

UNITED STATES, : Court No. 94-09-00555

:

Defendant, :

:

and :

:

ELETROSILEX BELO HORIZONTE, :

:

Defendant-Intervenor. :

 :

ORDER

Upon review of the United States Department of Commerce’s Silicon Metal From Brazil,

Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand Court No. 94-09-00555, filed on

November 14, 1997, and Silicon Metal From Brazil, Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to

Court Remand, American Silicon Technologies v. United States, Court No. 94-09-00555, Slip Op.

98-22 (March 5, 1998) filed on January 29, 1999, (collectively “remand results”), and the

submissions of the parties in proceedings to date, it is hereby
Court No. 94-09-00555 Page 2

ORDERED that both sets of the remand results are sustained as to the determination of the

eight issues remanded to Commerce in American Silicon Technologies v. United States, ___ CIT

___, Slip Op. 97-58 (May 15, 1997); and it is further

ORDERED that the stay of the three issues remaining in this action is lifted; and it is further

ORDERED that, in view of the complexity of what has transpired in this case and other

related cases before this Court, the parties shall, submit briefs addressing the three remaining issues,

which are (1) calculation of dumping margins based upon sales during the review period in absence

of shipment into the U.S., (2) treatment of ICMS and IPI taxes for Companhia Brasilaira Carbureto

de Calcio (“CBCC”) and Minasligas, and (3) use of information from Solvay do Brasil’s

consolidated financial statements in calculating CBCC’s monthly interest expenses. In particular,

the parties’ briefs shall discuss this Court’s holdings in American Silicon Technologies, Court No.

97-02-00267, ___ CIT ___, Slip Op. 99-34 (April 9, 1999), as they relate to the final determination

of the these three issues. Plaintiff’s brief shall be filed within 60 days of the date of this order.

Defendant and defendant-intervenors shall have 60 days from the date of service of plaintiff’s brief

to file response briefs, and plaintiff shall have 25 days from the date of service of the response briefs

to file a reply brief. 

 ____________________________________

 R. KENTON MUSGRAVE, JUDGE

Dated: September 9, 1999 

 New York, New York
**Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM     We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-51508, 33-64313,333-51512, 333-27563, 333-63756, 333-81441, 333-63754, 333-110098, 333-51506, 333-115849,333-121755, 333-121754 and 333-124863 on Form S-8 and 333-126559 on Form S-3 of Nash-Finch Companyof our report dated February 28, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andrelated financial statement schedule of Nash-Finch Company and subsidiaries, Nash-Finch Companymanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Nash-Finch Company and subsidiaries,included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Nash-Finch Company for the fiscal year ended December30, 2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPMinneapolis, Minnesota
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 31, 2013

NO. 03-12-00515-CV

Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and 

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellants

v.

Newpark Resources, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

CONCURRING OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on July 2, 2012. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellant shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1574 

To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to permit an individual to invest 

in private issuers upon acknowledging the investment risks, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2023 

Mr. DAVIDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to permit an individual 

to invest in private issuers upon acknowledging the investment risks, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Risk Disclosure and 

5 Investor Attestation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INVESTOR ATTESTATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(a)(15) of the Securities 

8 Act of 1933 (77b(a)(15)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1574 IH

1 (1) by redesignating clause (i) as subparagraph 

2 (A); 

3 (2) in subparagraph (A), as so redesignated, by 

4 striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

5 (3) by redesignating clause (ii) as subparagraph 

6 (B); 

7 (4) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated, by 

8 striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

9 and 

10 (5) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(C) with respect to an issuer, any indi12 vidual that has attested to the issuer that the 

13 individual understands the risks of investment 

14 in private issuers, using such form as the Com15 mission shall establish, by rule, but which form 

16 may not be longer than 2 pages in length.’’. 

17 (b) RULEMAKING.—Not later than the end of the 1- 

18 year period beginning on the date of enactment of this 

19 Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall issue 

20 rules to carry out the amendments made by subsection (a), 

21 including establishing the form required under such 

22 amendments. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
11682.

#### JONES *v.*THE STATE.

Decided November 9, 1920.

In view of the defendant’s statement at the trial and of his counsel’s request to the court to charge the law of voluntary manslaughter, it is not cause for a new trial that the court charged the jury on that subject.

Indictment for murder — conviction of manslaughter; from Carroll superior court—-Judge Terrell. June 15, 1920'.

*Smith, & Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. E. Roop, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The accused was indicted and tried for murder and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The only ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial alleged that the court erred in charging the law of voluntary manslaughter. In approving the ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, the court certified that “ movant’s counsel asked me to charge the law of voluntary manslaughter, in view of defendant’s statement.” In the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error he says that in view of the certificate on the amended motion by the presiding judge “we deem it useless to call the court’s attention to the ground of the amended motion.” The verdict is in conformity to that portion of the charge in reference to voluntary manslaughter. This charge was given at the request of counsel for defendant and was based on his statement, and a new trial will not be granted because of this charge. See *Threlkeld*v. *State,*128 *Ga.*660 (1) (58 S. E. 49), and citations; *Partee*v. *State,*19 *Ga. App.*753 (3) 757 (92 S. E. 306), and cases cited. The evidence would have supported a verdict of murder, and the plaintiff in error is fortunate in getting off with a lower verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C.J., and Luke, J., concur.*