alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rebecca Jean STEWART, also known as Rebecca Jean Stewart, also known as Cynthia Stewart, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51317

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rebecca Jean Stewart, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

. Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rebecca Jean Stewart, federal prisoner #34290-080, appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) allows the court to modify a term of imprisonment “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the sentencing commission.” § 3582(c)(2).

Amendment 505, effective November 1, 1994, amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to estab*589lish level 38 as the highest category of the drug quantity table. U.S.S.G., App. C, Amend. 505. Stewart was sentenced after amendment 505 took effect. Her argument is thus not one cognizable under § 3582. *See United States v. Shaw,*30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994).

The district court did not err in denying Stewart’s § 3582(c) motion. Because this issue had already been decided adversely to Stewart in the denial of her prior § 3582(c) motion, this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2; *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Stewart is warned that future challenges to her sentence under amendment 505 will invite the imposition of sanctions against her. Those sanctions could include a monetary penalty and/or limitations on her ability to challenge her sentence.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### State of New York, Respondent, v LVF Realty Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), Appellant.

Submitted April 6, 2009;

decided June 9, 2009

*872Motion for leave to appeal denied upon the ground that an appeal lies as of right.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3847

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Michael Todd Smithey, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 29, 1999

Filed: May 4, 1999

___________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Todd Smithey appeals his conviction and sentence for transporting or

causing to be transported in interstate commerce securities worth more than $5,000 and

taken by fraud. Smithey contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's

verdict. Smithey also raises an argument about his sentence. We reject Smithey's

contentions and conclude that an extended discussion of the issues presented by his

appeal will serve no useful purpose. First, the record contains substantial evidence on

which the jury reasonably could have found Smithey guilty of the charge. Second, the

district court correctly determined Smithey's guidelines sentence. See United States v.

Jackson, 155 F.3d 942, 948 (8th Cir.) (estimate of intended loss need only be plausible
-2-

in light of record as whole), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 627 (1998); United States v. Van

Chase, 137 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 1998) (two-level role increase is warranted when

defendant organized or directed another's participation). We thus affirm Smithey's

conviction and sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Golf Rounds.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the
Company.

Dated: April 11, 2006                       /s/ Robert H. Donehew
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     Robert H. Donehew
                                     President (Principal Executive Officer)
                                     and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)

                                        8
```
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3538

_____________________________
M ICHAEL D. R EED , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

. March 15, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OWE , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Michael D. Reed , Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20227

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL FABRICIO LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/No. 17-20237

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL FABRICIO LOPEZ, also known as Loco,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-558-1

USDC No. 4:10-CR-839-5

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20227 Document: 00514378150 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2018
No. 17-20227

c/w No. 17-20237

2

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this consolidated appeal, Joel Fabricio Lopez challenges the sentences 

imposed for his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States and the 

revocation of his supervised release. He asserts that the district court 

committed reversible plain error by sentencing him in those cases without 

ordering a presentence report (PSR).

To the extent Lopez contends that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

32(c)(1)(A) required the preparation of a new or additional PSR in his 

revocation case, he has not demonstrated clear or obvious error. See Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d 63, 

68-69 & n.10 (2d Cir. 1997). Neither has Lopez shown that the absence of a 

PSR for his new illegal-reentry case affected his substantial rights with respect 

to that case or his revocation case. The information in the record was sufficient 

to allow the district court to meaningfully consider the relevant sentencing 

factors, and Lopez has not shown that the guidelines ranges recognized by the 

district court for those cases were erroneous. See FED. R. CRIM.

P. 32(c)(1)(A)(ii). We decline to exercise our discretion in both cases under the 

fourth prong of plain error review. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

AFFIRMED.

 

* 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.

 Case: 17-20227 Document: 00514378150 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2018
#### Donald J. Jones et al., Appellants, v Town of Carroll et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 4, 2009;

decided June 11, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution, and the so ordered stipulation does not qualify as a final judgment within the meaning of CPLR 5602 (a) (1) (ii) to bring up for review the prior *881nonfinal Appellate Division order because it was entered into without prejudice.

Judge Pigott taking no part.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

February 13, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00332

- CV

AME & FE INVESTMENTS, LTD.

, Appellant

v.

NEC NETWORKS, LLC , dba CaptureRX, Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 11952 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellee ’ s Unopposed Motion for Relief from Stay is GRANTED. The stay imposed by this court in appeal No. 04

- 17

- 00332

- CV is lifted.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of February, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### Robert J. A. Zito, Respondent, v Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding et al., Defendants. Nimkoff Rosenfeld & Schechter, LLP Nonparty Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 138]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 11, 2008, which denied nonparty appellant’s motion to vacate a prior order, same court and Justice, instead directing turnover of appellant’s files to plaintiff on condition the latter agrees to pay fees and disbursements as determined by a special referee and to retain and maintain the files pending such determination, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting appellant a retaining lien to be set by the referee, and directing that such amount be paid or secured as a condition to appellant’s release of the files, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Zito had been a contract partner with the now-defunct defendant Fischbein firm. He retained the nonparty appellant Nimkoff firm to bring a claim against Fischbein, a successor firm and its former partners for compensation allegedly due. Appellant was hired on contingency, with a $25,000 retainer. Under the retainer agreement, invoices unpaid for more than 30 days would accrue 1% interest per month, compounded monthly. If an invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days, appellant could withdraw.

By December 7, 2007 order to show cause, appellant sought to withdraw based on its deteriorating relationship with plaintiff (under the rules of professional conduct) and the failure to pay disbursements (under the retainer agreement), and asserted a retaining lien in the amount of disbursements. By order entered March 7, 2008, Justice Cahn allowed appellant to withdraw and directed a referee hearing to determine the quantum meruit amount of fees and disbursements owed. Since the amount of appellant’s fees was being referred to a special referee, the court denied a retaining lien without prejudice to renewal following the determination.

*533By show cause order on March 10, plaintiff sought immediate turnover of the files. Justice Cahn declined to sign that order and deemed it withdrawn, but sua sponte directed appellant to turn over the files to plaintiff on condition that plaintiff sign an agreement to pay disbursements owed within 30 days from the referee’s determination of the amount, and to retain the files turned over to him until the proceeding ends. Appellant now argues that the motion court erroneously denied a retaining lien, given that its disbursements remained unpaid. We agree.

“Absent evidence of discharge for cause, a court should not order turnover of an outgoing attorney’s file before the client fully pays the attorney’s disbursements or provides security therefor” *(Warsop v Novik,*50 AD3d 608, 609 [2008]). The motion court improperly denied appellant a retaining lien pending the disbursement proceeding determination *(see Gonzalez v City of New York,*45 AD3d 347 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 701 [2008]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Gonzalez, McGuire and Acosta, JJ. *[See*2008 NY Slip Op 30634(U).]
Exhibit
32.1


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 on Amendment No.1 to
Form 10-K of China Jianye Fuel, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Jianye Wang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





(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.





Date: March 5,
2010


/s/
      Jianye WangJianye
      Wang, Chairman, Principal
      Executive Officer,
              Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and
              Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1301

JOHN CHARLES SCOTCHEL, JR.,

Debtor - Appellant,

and

HELEN HOLLAND SCOTCHEL,

Debtor,

v.

MARTIN PATRICK SHEEHAN, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of 

John C. Scotchel, Jr., and Helen H. Scotchel,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00161-IMK; 1:12-bk-00009)

Submitted: October 28, 2014 Decided: November 14, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Charles Scotchel, Jr., Morgantown, West Virginia, for 

Appellant. Martin P. Sheehan, SHEEHAN & NUGENT, P.L.L.C., 

Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

John Charles Scotchel, Jr., appeals the district 

court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining 

the trustee’s objection and finding that the entire amount of a 

contingency fee award was properly includable in Scotchel’s 

bankruptcy estate. We have reviewed the record included on 

appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the courts 

below. Scotchel v. Sheehan, Nos. 1:13-cv-00161-IMK; 1:12-bk00009 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 3, 2014; June 25, 2013). 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
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 37 

To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 2 years. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer 

research for 2 years. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR 

4 BREAST CANCER RESEARCH. 

5 Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2007’’. 

Æ
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3644 

To suspend temporarily the duty on weft pile fabrics of cotton, other than 

uncut weft pile fabrics or cut corduroy. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2006 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on weft pile fabrics of 

cotton, other than uncut weft pile fabrics or cut corduroy. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WEFT PILE FABRICS OF COTTON, OTHER THAN 

4 UNCUT WEFT PILE FABRICS OR CUT COR5 DUROY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 3644 IS 

‘‘ 9902.58.01 Weft pile fabrics of cotton, other than 

uncut weft pile fabrics or cut corduroy 

(provided for in subheading 5801.23) ..... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
______________________AURORA LOAN SERVICES_________________________
Owner:
None
Depositor:
Structured Asset Securities Corporation

Attention: Mortgage Finance LMT 2007-2

745 7
th
Ave, 7
th
Floor

New York, NY 10019
Master Servicer:   Aurora Loan Services
Michele Olds

10350 Park Meadows Drive

Littleton, CO 80124
Trustee:
US Bank, N.A.

Structured Finance / LMT 2007-2

One Federal Street, 3
rd
Floor

Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Securities Administrator:

Subject:
Annual Officer's Certification
Fiscal Year:
2007
Investor Code:
H05
Investor Name:
LMT 2007-2
I, Terry Gentry, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan Services LLC (the "Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar Year 2007: 1.    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on the cut-off date and ending on December 31, 2007 (the reporting period) and of its performance under the Agreement for such period has been made under my supervision.
2.     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material aspects throughout such reporting period.



Certified by:  AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC









By:   /s/ Terry L. Gentry






Name:  Terry L. Gentry
Title:    Managing Director
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-11237 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE BOCANEGRA-GUTIERREZ, also known as Jose Gilberto Bocanegra-Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CR-197-ALL-P

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Bocanegra-Gutierrez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Bocanegra-Gutierrez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-11237 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Bocanegra-Gutierrez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum sentence which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Bocanegra-Gutierrez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.