alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7651

JERRELL ANTONIO ROBERTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN DOBBS,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (9:21-cv-00004-JD)

Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: July 25, 2022

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerrell Antonio Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7651 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerrell Antonio Roberts, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice for 

lack of jurisdiction Roberts’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Roberts sought to 

challenge his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) conviction by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction in a traditional writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective 

to test the legality of his detention.

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a 

conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or 

the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent 

to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law 

changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed 

not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping 

provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.

In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000).

We have reviewed the record and, given Roberts’ concession that he has not yet 

filed a § 2255 motion relevant to the challenged conviction, we find no reversible error in 

the district court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Roberts’ § 2241 

petition. See Marlowe v. Warden, FCI Hazelton, 6 F.4th 562, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2021)

(reiterating that “[t]he Section 2255 remedy is not rendered inadequate or ineffective 

merely because an individual has been unable to obtain relief under that provision, or 

because an individual is procedurally barred from filing a Section 2255 motion” (cleaned 

up)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7651 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7651 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2563 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2563

              To suspend temporarily the duty on Imazapyr.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

  Mr. Burris introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To suspend temporarily the duty on Imazapyr.

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

SECTION 1. IMAZAPYR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       2-[4,5-dihydro-4-   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          methyl-4-(1-                                                       31/2011.......
                          methylethyl)-5-
                          oxo-1H-imidazol-2-
                          yl]-3-
                          pyridinecarboxyli
                          c acid (CAS No.
                          81334-34-1)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2933.39.25)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-102627, No. 333-107990, No.333-115628 and No. 333-117425) and Form S-3 (No. 333-112027) of Plains Exploration & Production Company of our report dated March 15, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Houston, Texas 

March 15, 2004
#### Luis Napoleon ZAVALA PERLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73727.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2009.*

Filed April 29, 2009.

J. Jack Artz, Esq., Law Office of J. Jack Artz, Norwalk, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Napoleon Zavala Perla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction *539is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether a particular conviction constitutes an aggravated felony, *Randhawa v. Ashcroft,*298 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2002), and we review for substantial evidence the factual determinations underlying a denial of CAT relief, *Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey,*518 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Zavala Perla removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1708 categorically constitutes a theft offense and Zavala Perla was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year for his crime. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G); *Randhawa,*298 F.3d at 1153-54.

A reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to reverse the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Zavala Perla has not shown that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. *See Lemus-Galvan,*518 F.3d at 1084.

We need not reach Zavala Perla’s remaining contentions because he does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal due to his criminal convictions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME OF WOLVERINE TUBE, INC. FOR THE
NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 3, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET OF WOLVERINE TUBE, INC. AT OCTOBER 3, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                          95,887
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,549<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     90,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               269,074
<PP&E>                                         190,729<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 554,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,860
<BONDS>                                        215,663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           141
<OTHER-SE>                                     247,157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   554,200
<SALES>                                        487,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               487,794
<CGS>                                          418,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  418,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,113
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,147
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,738
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,409
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,409
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.48
<FN>
<F1>THE VALUES FOR THE TAGS RECEIVABLE AND PP&E ARE SHOWN NET OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
ALLOWANCE ACCOUNTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Parviz Noghrey, Appellant, v Town of Brookhaven et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 21, 2010;

decided September 2, 2010

*816Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Appellate Division order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. In addition, the May 2010 Supreme Court judgment provided by appellant is not an appealable paper pursuant to CPLR 5602 (a) (1) (ii) because it does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution *(see Burke v Crosson,*85 NY2d 10, 18 n 5 [1995]).
Exhibit 23.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

We hereby consent to the references in this Form 10-K/A of Plains Exploration & Production Company, as well as in the Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2010, including the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in such Form 10-K, to our reserve reports to the interest of Plains
Exploration & Production Company and its subsidiaries (collectively the Company), relating to the estimated quantities of certain of the Companys proved reserves of oil and gas and present values thereof for certain
periods. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-102627, No. 333-107990, No. 333-115628, No. 333-117425 and No. 333-145004) and Form S-3 (No.
333-165263) of Plains Exploration & Production Company.



By:

/s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
TBPE Firm Registration No. F-1580


Houston, Texas

September 1, 2010
No. 99-41369

-1-

 

* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-41369

Conference Calendar

 

TONY ROGERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ALLEN PINCHBACK; INYANG E. WILSON; KEVIN WESEMAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-99-CV-374

--------------------

April 12, 2000

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Tony Rogers, Texas prisoner #727683, appeals from the

dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. He contends

that the medical care he received violated the Eighth Amendment.

Rogers made no nonfrivolous allegations of deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Rogers’s appeal is without arguable

merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 

(5th Cir. 1983). The district court’s dismissal of Rogers’s

complaint and this court’s dismissal of the appeal as frivolous
No. 99-41369

-2-

count as two “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Rogers is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three “strikes” under

§ 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-20631

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Robert Davis, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-140-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Robert Davis, federal prisoner # 97410-079, appeals the denial of his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. We review 

for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 

(5th Cir. 2020). We need not consider whether the district court erred by 

* 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

June 24, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-20631 Document: 00516370028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2022
No. 21-20631

2

determining that Davis failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warranting a sentence reduction because the district court’s alternative 

consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors provides a sufficient basis for 

affirmance. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360–62 (5th Cir. 2021); 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94. 

On appeal, Davis contends that relief is warranted based on his high 

risk for serious illness if he contracts COVID-19, the extraordinary length of 

his sentence, intervening changes in sentencing laws, his acceptance of 

responsibility, and his record of post-sentencing rehabilitation. However, the 

district court determined that the sentencing factors did not support a 

sentence reduction due to Davis’s role in his offense of conviction, the nature 

of his offense, and his “extensive criminal history.” Davis’s disagreement 

with the district court’s weighing of the Section 3553(a) factors does not 

warrant reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-20631 Document: 00516370028 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2022
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.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

# AGENCY:

National Archives and Records Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records Archives (ACERA). The committee serves as a deliberative body to advise the Archivist of the United States, on technical, mission, and service issues related to the Electronic Records Archives (ERA). This includes, but is not limited to, advising and making recommendations to the Archivist on issues related to the development, implementation and use of the ERA system.

# DATES:

November 4-5, 2009, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20408-0001.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Agenda

    - Opening Remarks;
    - Approval of Minutes;
    - Committee Updates;
    - Activities Reports;
    - Adjournment.

                    This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Electronic Records Archives Program at                     *era.program@nara.gov.*                     This meeting will be recorded for transcription purposes.                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha Morphy, Assistant Archivist for Information Services, (301) 837-1992.

Dated: October 15, 2009.

Mary Ann Hadyka,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-25368 Filed 10-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Primativo AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-14347

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 11, 2009.

Primativo Avila, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.

Peggy Morris Ronca, Orlando, FL, Peter J. Sholl, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Primativo Avila appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Avila’s motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines. We affirm.

“We review *de novo*a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” *United States v. James,*548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment in the case of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

The district court did not err. Amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering Avila’s sentencing range. Avila was held responsible for more than eleven grams of cocaine base and was ineligible for a sentence reduction. *See United States v. Jones,*548 F.3d 1366, 1368-69 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam). Avila argues that the district court had discretion to reduce his sentence below the amended range under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), but *Booker*cannot be used as an independent basis to reduce a sentence. *876
      *See United States v. Melvin,*556 F.3d 1190, 1191-93 (11th Cir.2009) (per curiam). We affirm the denial of Avila’s motion.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
31.2 CERTIFICATION
 
 I,
William H. Campbell, Acting Chief Financial Officer , certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Earthworks Entertainment, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included
in this quarterly report fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4.  The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c)  Presented
in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;
 
 5.  The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 a)  All
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b)  Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6.  The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Dated:
      May 18, 2005
    /s/
      WILLIAM H.
      CAMPBELLWilliam
      H. CampbellChief
      Financial Officer