alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20556

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER LEMOSES JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-891-1

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

October 29, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Lemoses Johnson appeals his conviction and

sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Johnson

argues that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) must be

reversed because it is unconstitutional to convict a defendant

under that statute when the firearm’s only connection with

interstate commerce was that at some point in the past it crossed

state lines.
No. 01-20556

-2-

 This court has repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges

to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) convictions, concluding that the

interstate commerce element is satisfied by the possession of a

firearm that was manufactured in a different state or country. 

See United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712 (5th Cir. 2002),

cert. denied, (U.S. Oct. 7, 2002) (No. 02-5348); see also United

States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 1150 (2002). Thus, Johnson’s argument fails. 

The conviction is AFFIRMED. 

AFFIRMED.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-18-00427-CR 

LORENZO CECIL GRAVES, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 47th District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 23,535-A, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding 

 

January 11, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant, Lorenzo Cecil Graves, a Texas prison inmate appearing pro se, appeals 

from the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to 

Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now pending before this court is 

appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal signed by appellant. Without passing on the 

merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s
2

request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam

Do not Publish.
Exhibit 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Westway
Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |        |  |                                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.                           
|                       |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.                               
|                       |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
|Dated: August 17, 2009 |  |  |  |        |  |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARVIN JOSHUA WHITE,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00715-RBH-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bradley M. Kirkland, BRADLEY M. KIRKLAND, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Joshua White seeks to appeal his 180-month sentence, imposed pursuant 

to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, for possession with intent to distribute 

crack cocaine. White’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning 

whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. White filed a pro se brief 

contending that the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress, and that he is 

entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 to the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

We generally review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “However, not all 

sentences are subject to appellate review.” United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622-

23 (4th Cir. 2016). In this case, we lack jurisdiction to review White’s sentence of 

imprisonment because the district court sentenced White in accordance with the terms of 

his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the sentence is not unlawful, and the sentence is not 

based on the Sentencing Guidelines. See id. at 623-25. We therefore dismiss White’s 

appeal of his sentence. 

We have considered the arguments asserted in White’s pro se supplemental brief 

and conclude they are without merit. In accordance with Anders, within the constraints 

set forth in Williams, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no 

meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm White’s conviction. This court 

requires that counsel inform White, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court 
3

of the United States for further review. If White requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this 

court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy 

thereof was served on White.

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 IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4551

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JONATHAN LEE SHULL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00018)

Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 12, 2007

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fredilyn Sison, Assistant Federal Defender, Asheville, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States

Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Don D. Gast, Assistant United

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Lee Shull pled guilty to two bank robberies in

North Carolina and one in Tennessee. He was sentenced to 240

months for each North Carolina robbery and 293 months for the

Tennessee robbery. The sentences ran concurrently. We previously

vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing light of United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Following resentencing, the

district court imposed the identical sentences. Shull now appeals,

contending that the district court erred when it increased his

offense level by six points for possession of a firearm during the

Tennessee robbery. Finding no error, we affirm.

At resentencing, the district court found by a

preponderance of the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing

that Shull had displayed and pointed a pistol at a bank teller.

Accordingly, he had “otherwise used” a firearm during the Tennessee

robbery, warranting the six-level enhancement. See U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) (2003). It is established that

the district court’s use of the preponderance of the evidence

standard while applying the guidelines as advisory does not violate

the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th

Cir. 2005). 

Shull’s sentence falls within the applicable statutory

maximum and the properly calculated advisory guideline range.

Further, the district court considered the factors set forth at 18
*

Because the sentence is not above the advisory guideline

range but was instead correctly determined, we reject Shull’s claim

that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court did

not state how a sentence above the advisory range serves the

purposes of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a). 

- 3 -

U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) when imposing sentence.

We conclude that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v.

Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2309

(2006); United States v. Hughes, 410 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005).

We accordingly affirm.* We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6753

JUSTIN JERMAINE JOHNSON, a/k/a Justin J. Johnson,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:22-cv-03210-CMC)

Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 2, 2024

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin Jermaine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6753 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Justin Jermaine Johnson, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 

Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6753 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1838-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated May 15, 2009, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         June 8, 2009.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective June 8, 2009.

                        The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance                               ( print page 31042)                            (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.                    

W. Craig Fugate, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

 [FR Doc. E9-15349 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Ronald E. Bruno, Christopher 

Garcia, Sergio Lopez, Patrick 

G. Mendoza, and Troy J. 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00350-CV

Jack RETTIG,

Appellant

v.

Ronald E. BRUNO, Christopher Garcia, Sergio Lopez, Patrick G. Mendoza, and Troy J. 

Williams,

Appellees

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CVQ000699 D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's Motion to Abate Appeal is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Section 1350)**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Primoris Services Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Brian Pratt, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

 

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

 

2.                        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

In witness whereof, theundersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as of the date setforth opposite his signature below.

 
| Date: November 9,  2010 | /s/ BRIAN PRATT                                                           |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Brian Pratt*Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President* |

 

1

----
# Result 21.2
@article{12071,
  author = {Mitchell Furst and R Graves and A Hamilton and L Hughey and R Madden and Robert Vest and W Trzeciak and L Greenler and P Robl and D Wahl},
  title = {The Conversion of SURF II to SURF III},
  year = {1999},
  month = {1999-04-02},
  publisher = {Pacific-Asia Conference},
  language = {en},
}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

BRIAN HUGHES,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 166 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00328- CR Ja so n Le e M or e lan d, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WILLI AMSO N COUNTY NO. 04-2 412- 2, HO NORAB LE TIMO THY L. WRIGHT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N After his moti on to suppress evidence was overruled, appellant J ason L ee Mor eland pleade d guilty

to possessing less than two ounc es of m arihua na. SeeTex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121 (West 2003). A s ca l l ed for in a ple a barg ain agree ment, the cour t defe rre d adjudication and pla ced a ppellant on community

supervision. In his sole point of er

ror, a ppellant contends that the war rant to sea

rch his re sidence was issued without pr obable c ause. H e re lies on the opinions of this C ourt in Da v ila v . S tate , 169 S.W .3d 735 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.), and Se rra no v . S tate , 1 2 3 S. W. 3 d

5 3 ( T e x. App.—Austin 2003, pet. ref ’d). The State confe sses err or. The point of e rror is sustained.2 Th e de fe rr e d a dju dic atio n ord e r is re ve rs e d an d th e c a us e is r e mand e d to the c ounty court at law. On the State’s motion, the Court’s mandate sha ll issue imm ediately . SeeTex. R. App. P. 18.1(c).

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Reverse d and Remande d Filed: De cembe r 15, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification of Periodic Financial Report**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

Forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, John Saunders the ChiefExecutive Officer of Integrated Management Information, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

 

(i)             the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)          the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  November 12, 2010           |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  John Saunders                      |   |
| John  Saunders, Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
H. Res. 842 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 11, 2020. 

Resolved, That an affirmative vote of a majority of the 

Members present and voting, a quorum being present, shall 

be required on final passage of House Joint Resolution 79. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.2

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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Susser Holdings Corporation (the Company) for the three and nine months ended
October 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mary E. Sullivan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; 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: November 15, 2006 |  | SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION
|                        |  |                            
|                        |  | By                          |  | /s/ Mary E. Sullivan                                
|                        |  |                             |  | Mary E. Sullivan                                    
|                        |  |                             |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.