alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The HONORABLE R. E. LONGSTAFF, United States District Judge for the 1

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1934

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Southern District of Iowa.

Leobardo Urista-Coronado, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 5, 1997

 Filed: December 29, 1997

___________

Before LOKEN, HEANEY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leobardo Urista-Coronado pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United

States without the permission of the United States Attorney General, after having been

previously convicted of a felony and deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),

(b)(2). The district court sentenced Urista-Coronado at the bottom of the applicable 1

Guidelines range to 77 months imprisonment, to be followed by two years supervised
-2-

release. In this appeal counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), raising a sentencing error. We affirm.

At sentencing, Urista-Coronado asked the court to depart downward from the

Guidelines range by two levels on the basis that he agreed to be deported, and that he

would suffer “collateral consequences” during imprisonment as a result of his alien

status. The government resisted any departure. After expressing concern that UristaCoronado had been deported three times before, and especially that he had a history

of violence and criminal conduct, the district court denied the request for departure.

Counsel argues in the Anders brief that the district court erred in refusing to depart.

We conclude the district court&s decision not to depart was an exercise of

discretion, which we do not review. See United States v. Field, 110 F.3d 587, 591 (8th

Cir. 1997); United States v. Payne, 81 F.3d 759, 764-65 (8th Cir. 1996). After

reviewing the remaining record on appeal, we also conclude there are no other

nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10717 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

STEVEN LAWRENCE FORCUM

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:17

- CR

- 101

- 1

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Steven Lawrence Forcum has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229
(5th Cir. 2011). Forcum has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief
and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Forcum ’ s

response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 15, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10717 Document: 00514795678 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2019No. 18

- 10717

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s m otion for leave
to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities
herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-10717 Document: 00514795678 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2019
#### Rievon Ben LEE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 09-6108.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 1, 2009.

Decided: May 13, 2009.

Rievon Ben Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rievon Ben Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Lee’s motion for bail or release pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### 166 Archer Ave. Co., LLC, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Respondent.

Submitted April 6, 2009;

decided May 12, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine *849the action within the meaning of the Constitution *(see Burke v Crosson,*85 NY2d 10, 18 n 5 [1995]).
#### Norma Garcia GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71093.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 24, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2006.

*862Charles E. Woode, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Donald A. Couvillon, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges, and CARNEY,** District Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

1. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal for failure to show the requisite hardship. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; *see also Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). To the extent we can review due process challenges, *see Martinez-Rosas,*424 F.3d at 930, we find no colorable *863constitutional violation. First, the IJ applied the proper standard. *See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 1001, 1006-07 (9th Cir.2003). Second, petitioner had notice that both the asylum and cancellation applications would be considered at the removal hearing, and did not seek a continuance to present additional evidence until the end of the hearing. It was not an abuse of discretion, and certainly not a violation of due process, for the IJ to deny the continuance at that late time.

2. We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen because petitioner never filed a petition for review of this final order. *See Stone v. INS,*514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); *Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1257-58 (9th Cir.1996). In any event, the BIA properly denied the motion because petitioner was not entitled to another opportunity to apply for cancellation of removal.

PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4050 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.4050

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, Georgia, as the ``Sergeant First 
      Class Robert Lee `Bobby' Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ROBERT LEE ``BOBBY'' HOLLAR, JR. POST 
              OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, Georgia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sergeant First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' 
Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 19, 2009

l1112 

# Order

November 19, 2009

139083-4

JOSEPH HINZ, as Pers onal Representative of the ESTATE OF JOHN ALLEN HAWKINS, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139083 COA: 285125 Ingham CC: 07-001056-NI ALAN ALMY, Defendant-Appellee,

and

ALEXANDER HAMIL, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

JOSEPH HINZ, as Pers onal Representative of the ESTATE OF JOHN ALLEN HAWKINS, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139084 COA: 285126 Court of Claims: 07-000026-MZ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 7, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , C.J., and C AVANAGH and H ATHAWAY , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for thequarter ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Brian R. Stone, Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| / s /    Brian  R. Stone       |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian R. Stone                                     |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
|                                               |
| August 14, 2003                                    |

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by 18 USC Section 1350 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
exv10w1



 



Exhibit 10.1



AMENDMENT

TO THE

GENVEC, INC. 2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN



     WHEREAS, GenVec, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“GenVec”) has heretofore
adopted the GENVEC, INC. 2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (the “Plan”); and


     WHEREAS, GenVec’s Board of Directors and stockholders have approved an
amendment to the Plan to increase the number of shares of common stock
available thereunder;


     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of June 13, 2007, Section 5.1(a) the Plan
shall be amended to read as follows:



	 	“the maximum number of Shares that may be issued under
this Plan is 11,580,000 Shares, plus any Unissued
Shares.”
Order entered October 20 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00521

- CR

GREGORY ALLEN ROBINS ON, JR, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13

- 34479

- R



### O RDER
On August 12, 2014, this Court ordered the trial court to prepare and file a certification of appellant’s right to appeal. The Court d etermined that the certification was signed by the trial court on August 13, 2 014 . Therefore, on September 17, 2014, we ordered the Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk to file a supplemental record containing the certification. To date, the Court has not received the supplemental record. The appeal cannot proceed until the Court has received the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal. Accordingly, we ORDER Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk, to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the August 13, 2014 certification of appellant’s r ight to appeal within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. If the Court does not receive the supplemental record within the time specified, we utilize the available remedies to obtain the supplemental record, including referral of the case to the trial cou rt for findings regarding the failure to file the supplemental record.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the

Honorable Mark Stoltz, Presiding Judge, 265th Judicial District Court; Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas
Coun ty District Clerk; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### Barbara Stewart, as Executor of Archibald Stewart, Deceased, Respondent, v Guy E.C. Maitland et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted October 5, 2009;

decided January 12, 2010

Reported below, 58 AD3d 443.

Motion, insofar as defendants Maitland and Guida seek leave to appeal, dismissed upon the ground that as to these defend*923ants, the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as defendants International Registries, Inc. and Oban, LLC seek leave to appeal, denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3912 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3912

     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the 
    exceptions process with respect to caps on payments for therapy 
                  services under the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 19, 2006

Mr. Ensign (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. 
    Talent) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the 
    exceptions process with respect to caps on payments for therapy 
                  services under the Medicare program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Securing Effective and Necessary 
Individual Outpatient Rehabilitation Services (SENIORS) Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXCEPTIONS PROCESS FOR MEDICARE THERAPY CAPS.

    Section 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395l(g)(5)) is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``the period 
beginning on January 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2007,''.
                                 <all>
```
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Arturo Ceballos, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered November 15, 2013, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of theft of services, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered November 15, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>The misdemeanor information charging theft of services (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 165.15[3]) was not jurisdictionally defective. Defendant's intent to unlawfully obtain subway service is reasonably inferred from the surrounding circumstances of his actions (<i>see People v Bracey</i>, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]), including his entry into the subway system "without paying the required fare, by jumping over a turnstile" (<a href="../2015/2015_50237.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Barlow</i>, 46 Misc 3d 148</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50237[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015], <i>lv denied</i> 25 NY3d 1069 [2015]; <a href="../2016/2016_51344.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Mann</i>, 53 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip OP 51344[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; <a href="../2013/2013_51681.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also People v Pin</i>, 41 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51681[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013],<i> affd on other grounds sub nom. People v Matthew P., </i>26 NY3d 332 [2015]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: January 13, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,754]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 6, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Chromalox Precision, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of April 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10924 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 412

To reauthorize the Native American Programs Act of 1974. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2005

Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL

To reauthorize the Native American Programs Act of 1974.

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS ACT OF 1974. 

4 (a) INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL COUNCIL ON NATIVE

5 AMERICAN AFFAIRS.—Section 803B(d)(1) of the Native 

6 American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2991b–

7 2(d)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘There’’ and all that fol8 lows and inserting the following: ‘‘There is established in 

9 the Office of the Secretary the Intra-Departmental Coun10 cil on Native American Affairs. The Commissioner and the 

11 Director of the Indian Health Service shall serve as co12 chairpersons of the Council. The co-chairpersons shall ad-
2

•S 412 IS 

1 vise the Secretary on all matters affecting Native Ameri2 cans that involve the Department.’’. 

3 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

4 816 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 

5 U.S.C. 2992d) is amended—

6 (1) by striking subsections (a) through (c) and 

7 inserting the following: 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be ap9 propriated—

10 ‘‘(1) to carry out section 803(d), $8,000,000 

11 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010; and 

12 ‘‘(2) to carry out provisions of this title other 

13 than section 803(d) and any other provision having 

14 an express authorization of appropriations, such 

15 sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 

16 through 2010. 

17 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—Not less than 90 percent of the 

18 funds made available to carry out this title for a fiscal 

19 year (other than funds made available to carry out sec20 tions 803(d), 803A, 803C, and 804, and any other provi21 sion of this title having an express authorization of appro22 priations) shall be expended to carry out section 803(a).’’; 

23 (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub24 section (c); and 

25 (3) by striking subsection (e). 
3

•S 412 IS 

1 (c) REPORTS.—Section 811A of the Native American 

2 Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2992–1) is amended—

3 (1) by striking the section heading and all that 

4 follows through ‘‘each year,’’ and inserting the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 811A. REPORTS. 

7 ‘‘Every 5 years, the Secretary shall’’; and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘an annual report’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘a report’’. 

10 SEC. 2. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 

11 Section 7205(a)(3) of the Native Hawaiian Edu12 cation Act (20 U.S.C. 7515(a)(3)) is amended—

13 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (K) and 

14 (L) as subparagraphs (L) and (M), respectively; and 

15 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the fol16 lowing: 

17 ‘‘(K) research and educational activities re18 lating to Native Hawaiian law;’’.

Æ