alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1641

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the Unite d States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District o f Arkansas Clifton James Williams, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 25, 1997

Filed: Septembe r 25, 1997

___________ Bef ore McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD , Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Cli fton James Williams appeals from the sentenc e imposed by the United States District Court for th e 1 Eastern District of Arkansas after he pleaded guilty t o pos sessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C

. § 9 22(j). After the district court accepted Williams & s guilty plea, a presentence report (PSR) was prepared whic h-2-

indicated a Category VI criminal history based on 1 3 cri minal history points. In a letter to the probatio n off icer who prepared the PSR, Williams objected to th e inclusion in his-3-

cr iminal history of an aggravated robbery conviction , assertingthat it had been nol prossed. At the sentencin g heari ng, however, Williams stated that the PSR wa s fact uallycorrect, indicated that he had receive d certifieddocumentation of the objected-to conviction, an d withdrewhis objection. The district court then sentence d Williams to 92 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised rel ease. On appeal, Williams argues that the distric t court miscalculated his criminal history category b y assign ing criminal history points to him based on th e aggra vated robbery conviction at issue and a secon d related conviction for aggravated robbery. We affirm.

Be cause Williams failed to properly object to th e PSR & s asses sment of points for the two aggravated robbery convictions, we review only for plain error and find none

. See United States v. Wajda , 1 F.3d 731, 732-33 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (finding no plain error where defendan t objected to PSR & s assessment of criminal history point in letter to probation officer, retracted objection a t sentencing as counsel had seen proof of conviction, an d failedto produce evidence showing document relied upon by proba tionofficer was incorrect or that disputed charg e had been dismissed).

Williams also argues that counsel performe d deficiently

at sentencing. Because ineffective assistanc e claims are properly raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 procee ding brought in the sentencing court, we do no t ad dress that claim; for this reason, we also den y Will iams & s pro se request to proceed on appeal under § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. Martin , 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995) (ineffective assistanc e-4-

cla ims are more appropriately raised in § 2255 motion s than on direct appeal).

Acco rdingly, we affirm Williams & s conviction withou t prejudice to his right to raise his ineffective assistanc e claim in a properly filed § 2255 motion.-5-

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHT H CIRCUIT.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Dotson, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 270]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered March 24, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted kidnapping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a substitution of counsel, and there was no violation of defendant’s right to retain counsel of his own choosing *(see People v Arroyave,*49 NY2d 264, 270-271 [1980]). As jury selection was about to commence, defendant asked for a “reassignment” of counsel, claiming he had an attorney waiting and ready to proceed. However, defendant never identified this attorney, or indicated that he had retained an attorney or had the means to do so, and no such attorney ever contacted the court *(compare People v Thomas,*70 NY2d 859 [1987]). Furthermore, defendant’s meritless complaints about his assigned counsel did not constitute good cause for a substitution *(see People v Sides,*75 NY2d 822 [1990]).

*397We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Winford T.D., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[978 NYS2d 707]

Appeal from an adjudication of the Monroe County Court (Stephen T. Miller, A.J.), rendered January 7, 2009. The adjudication convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree as a youthful offender.

It is hereby ordered that the adjudication so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Scudder, EJ., Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Valentino, JJ.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3019 BRIAN K. NEWSOME,

Petitioner,

v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

AT0752080282-I-1. ON MOTION ORDER Brian K. Newsome moves for reconsideration of the court's December 31, 2008 order dismissing his petition for review for failure to file a brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion will be granted, the mandate will be recalled, and the petition will be reinstated if Newsome files his brief within 21 days of the date of filing of this order. FOR THE COURT 

### FEB 13 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Brian K. Newsome (copy of Merit Systems Protection Board's certified index and informal brief form enclosed) FILED Dawn E. Goodman, Esq. U.S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT s17 FEB 1 3 2009 111/2111-10Rimu CLERK
#### Roger Forbes, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted April 1, 2013;

decided May 2, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 13, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00341-CV

RICHARD H. PARKER, Appellant

V.

HELEN CHRISTINE PARKER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-13073

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed April 10, 2013. No clerk’s record has 

been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed 

the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On November 19, 2014, notification was transmitted to all parties of the 

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within 
2

fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and 

provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Wise.
Exhibit 23A


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (No.  333-29049) of
Aristar,  Inc and subsidiaries of our report dated January 19, 1999 appearing on
page 19 of this Form 10-K.



Deloitte and Touche LLP
Tampa, Florida
March 24, 1999




                                   Exhibit 23B


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (No.  333-29049) of
Aristar,  Inc and subsidiaries of our report dated January 17, 1997 appearing on
page 20 of this Form 10-K.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Tampa, Florida
March 19, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 335 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 335

To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act to repeal a fee 
        imposed by States on certain child support collections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 27, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act to repeal a fee 
        imposed by States on certain child support collections.

    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 ``Elimination of the Single Parent Tax 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT THAT STATES IMPOSE MANDATORY FEE FOR 
              SUCCESSFUL CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION FOR FAMILY THAT HAS 
              NEVER RECEIVED TANF.

    Section 454(6)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654(6)(B)) 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(i)'';
            (2) by striking clause (ii); and
            (3) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses (i) 
        and (ii), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
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-65,831]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 22, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of the workers of Cox Manufacturing Company Inc., Hildebran, North Carolina.

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

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of  Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13908 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 12(e)

                        Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
        Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                              1997      1998      1999      2000      2001
<S>                                                           <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
  Total Interest                                              $15,287   $14,792   $14,680   $15,891   $19,661
  Interest applicable to rentals                                  911     1,045     1,281     1,008       977
                                                             ------------------------------------------------
Total fixed charges, as defined                                16,198    15,837    15,961    16,899    20,638

Preferred dividends, as defined (a)                             1,723     1,566     1,566     1,643     2,898
                                                             ------------------------------------------------
Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined    $17,921   $17,403   $17,527   $18,542   $23,536
                                                             ================================================
Earnings as defined:

  Net Income                                                  $15,451   $16,137   $18,961   $16,518   ($2,195)
  Add:
    Provision for income taxes:
     Total                                                     12,142    10,042    13,030    11,597    (4,396)
    Fixed charges as above                                     16,198    15,837    15,961    16,899    20,638
                                                             ------------------------------------------------
Total earnings, as defined                                    $43,791   $42,016   $47,952   $45,014   $14,047
                                                             ================================================
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined                   2.70      2.65      3.00      2.66    (b)
                                                             ================================================
Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and
 preferred dividends, as defined                                 2.44      2.41      2.74      2.43    (b)
                                                             ================================================
</TABLE>
------------------------
 (a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-
      K, are computed by dividing the preferred dividend
      requirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the
      income tax rate.

 (b)  For Entergy New Orleans, earnings for the twelve
      months ended December 31, 2001 were not adequate to cover
      fixed charges and combined fixed charges and preferred
      dividends by $6.6  million and $9.5 million, respectively.
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 338 

AN ACT 

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify 

the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton 

Rancheria of California is deemed to be held in trust 

and to provide for the conduct of certain activities on 

the land. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 338 ES

1 SECTION 1. LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA. 

2 Section 819 of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act 

3 (Public Law 106–568; 114 Stat. 2919) is amended— 

4 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘Notwith5 standing’’ and inserting the following: 

6 ‘‘(a) ACCEPTANCE OF LAND.—Notwithstanding’’; 

7 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘The 

8 Secretary’’ and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘(b) DECLARATION.—The Secretary’’; and 

10 (3) by striking the third sentence and inserting 

11 the following: 

12 ‘‘(c) TREATMENT OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF CLASS

13 II GAMING.— 

14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

15 notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

16 Lytton Rancheria of California may conduct activi17 ties for class II gaming (as defined in section 4 of 

18 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 

19 2703)) on the land taken into trust under this sec20 tion. 

21 ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—The Lytton Rancheria of 

22 California shall not expand the exterior physical 

23 measurements of any facility on the Lytton 

24 Rancheria in use for class II gaming activities on 

25 the date of enactment of this paragraph. 
3 

†S 338 ES

1 ‘‘(d) TREATMENT OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF

2 CLASS III GAMING.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), for 

3 purposes of class III gaming (as defined in section 4 of 

4 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)), the 

5 land taken into trust under this section shall be treated, 

6 for purposes of section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regu7 latory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719), as if the land was acquired 

8 on October 9, 2003, the date on which the Secretary took 

9 the land into trust.’’. 

Passed the Senate March 12, 2009. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 338 

AN ACT 

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to 

of certain activities on the land. be held in trust and to provide for the conduct the Lytton Rancheria of California is deemed to modify the date as of which certain tribal land of
NO. 07-05-0108-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JULY 22, 2005

______________________________

BALDEMAR ARMENDARIZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF MOORE COUNTY;

NO. 3603; HONORABLE RON ENNS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Following a plea of not guilty, appellant Baldemar Armendariz was convicted by a

jury of delivery of cocaine and punishment was assessed at 27 years confinement and a

$10,000 fine. The clerk’s record and reporter’s record have both been filed. Appellant’s

brief was due to be filed on June 22, 2005, but has yet to be filed. Also, no motion for
2

extension of time has been filed. By letter dated June 29, 2005, this Court notified

appellant’s appointed attorney, Thomas C. Moore, of the defect and also explained that if

no response was received by July 11, 2005, the appeal would be abated pursuant to Rule

38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Therefore, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for

further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3). Upon remand, the trial court shall

immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to

determine the following: 

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;

2. whether appointed counsel for appellant has abandoned the appeal;

and

3. whether appellant has been denied effective assistance of counsel 

given his attorney's failure to file a brief.

The trial court shall cause a hearing to be transcribed. Should it be determined that

appellant does want to continue the appeal and is indigent, then the trial court shall also

take such measures as may be necessary to assure appellant effective assistance of

counsel, which measures may include the appointment of new counsel. If new counsel is

appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel

shall be included in the order appointing new counsel. Finally, the trial court shall execute

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and such orders as the court may enter regarding the

aforementioned issues and cause its findings and conclusions to be included in a
3

supplemental clerk's record. A supplemental record of the hearing shall also be included

in the appellate record. Finally, the trial court shall file the supplemental clerk's record and

the supplemental reporter's record with the Clerk of this Court by Friday, September 2,

2005.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2698 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Orange 43. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Orange 43. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT ORANGE 43. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Pigment Orange 43; 

Hostaperm Orange GR; 

Bisbenzimidazo[2,1- 

b:2′,1′i]benzo[lmn][3,8] phenanthroline-8, 17-dione (CAS 

No. 4424–06–0) (provided 

for in subheading 

3204.15.20) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2698 IS

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 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Office of Disciplinary Counsel *v.*McElrath.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. McElrath*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1208.]

(No. 94-1866

Submitted and decided March 21, 1997.)

On Application for Termination of Probation.

On December 14, 1994, this court suspended respondent, Lenza McElrath, Jr., for two years, with one year stayed and respondent to be placed on probation for one year, on conditions. On March 7, 1996, this court stayed the second year of respondent’s suspension and placed him on probation for one year, on conditions. On February 11,1997, respondent applied for termination of probation.

The court comes now to consider its orders of December 14,1994, and March 7, 1996, and finds that respondent has substantially complied with those orders and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(9).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED by the court that the probation of Lenza McElrath, Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0025794, last known address in Medina, Ohio, be, and hereby is, terminated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

For earlier cases,, see *Disciplinary Counsel v. McElrath*(1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 131, 642 N.E.2d 370; and *Disciplinary Counsel v. McElrath*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 1416, 661 N.E.2d 1117.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### Theron J. BARTELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1623.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 2, 2006.

Theron J. Bartell, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Ridgell-Boltz, Social Security Ad*178ministration, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Theron J. Bartell appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny disability benefits and denying Bartell’s motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Bartell v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin.,*No. 3:04-cv-22648-CMC (D.S.C. Feb. 21, 2006 & Apr. 24, 2006). We further deny Bar-tell’s motion to supplement the record on 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.

*AFFIRMED.*