alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6270

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RAYMOND A. HIBBERT, a/k/a Diamonds, a/k/a Steven Fallon, a/k/a Marcus A. Wheeler, a/k/a Andre Ray Davis , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Elizabeth W. Hanes , District Judge. ( 2:13

- cr - 00124

- EWH

- DEM

- 1 )

Submitted : October 4, 2023 Decided: December 28, 2023

Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Raymond A. Hibbert, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6270 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Raymond Hibbert appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release and a reduction in his sentence as moot due to his release to home confinement by the Bureau of Prisons. We vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. “If a change in the law or facts makes it impossible for a court to grant effective relief to a prevailing party, the case is moot and must be dismissed.” Johnson v. Charlotte

Mecklenburg Schs. Bd. of Educ. , 20 F.4th 835, 842

- 43 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim may be mooted when the claimant receives the relief he or she sought to obtain through the claim.” Williams v. Ozmint , 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) ( internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[ a ] case becomes mo ot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC , 598 U.S. 288, 295 (2023) ( internal quotation marks omitted ).
Pursu an t to Section 3582(c)(1)(A) , the district court has discretion to reduce Hibbert’s sentence

— even to time served

— and to order Hibbert’s immediate release. In his motions, Hibbert requested “immediate release” and a sentence reduction to time served. Because it is possible for the district court to grant Hibbert effectual relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) by reducing his prison sentence or releasing him from the USCA4 Appeal: 23-6270 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 custody of the Bureau of Prisons, his motions for a sentence reduction and compassionate
release we re not rendered moot by his release to home confinement. ∗ Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion on the merits of Hibbert’s motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material s before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

∗ “An inmate in home confinement remains in the custody of the Bureau” of Prisons. United States v. Saunders , 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021). T he Bureau of Prisons ’ website confirms that Hibbert is still in custody; his projected release date is July 21, 2027. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6270 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/28/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,707,676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,379,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,282,995
<PP&E>                                      25,638,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,611,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       32,881,986
<BONDS>                                      3,434,678
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           523
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,706,030)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,611,157
<SALES>                                     17,266,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,266,823
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,458,792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,199,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,565,253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,956,814)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,956,814)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,956,814)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Michael Anthony DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Karen L. COLLINS; Terri L. Lassiter; Chrise Wolfe, Assistant United States Attorney; Michael J. Worley, Assistant United States Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-10303

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 19, 2012.

Michael Anthony Davis, El Reno, OK, pro se.

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

*ON PETITION FOR REHEARING*

PER CURIAM: *

We construe the filing by Michael Anthony Davis, federal prisoner # 33896-177, as a petition for panel rehearing. The petition is GRANTED, our prior opinion is WITHDRAWN, and this opinion is SUBSTITUTED therefor.

Davis was convicted in 2005 of conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine base and distributing cocaine base and was sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment. In February 2012, Davis filed a complaint under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), seeking damages and challenging alleged errors that occurred at trial and sentencing. The district court denied relief but granted Davis leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

Davis’s protestations to certain qualifying dismissals (strikes) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) identified in our prior opinion, although correctly attributable to another prisoner named Michael Anthony Davis, do not provide grounds for the relief he seeks. Davis has in fact accumulated three strikes. On at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, Davis brought a civil action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. § 1915(g); *see Davis v. United States,*4:11-ev-00064-Y (N.D.Tex. July 6, 2011) (unpublished); *Davis v. United States,*5:10-cv-01136-*278HE, 2011 WL 693689 at *1 (WD.Okla. Feb.18, 2011) (unpublished); and *Davis v. United States,*426 Fed.Appx. 648, 2011 WL 2321458 at *1 (10th Cir. June 14, 2011). Further, Davis has not alleged, nor does the record reflect, that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

Accordingly, Davis’s IFP status is decer-tified, and the appeal is dismissed. Davis has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.

REHEARING GRANTED; PREVIOUS OPINION WITHDRAWN; IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
Advance copies of this statement are made available to the 

press under lock-up conditions with the explicit 

understanding that the data are embargoed until 8:30 a.m. 

Eastern Daylight Time. 

 

Statement of 

Kathleen P. Utgoff 

Commissioner 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Friday, August 2, 2002 

 Labor market conditions were little changed in July. 

The unemployment rate held at 5.9 percent and nonfarm 

payroll employment was flat at 130.8 million. Payroll 

employment has been essentially unchanged over the past 

5 months and the unemployment rate has remained within a 

narrow 5.8- to 6.0-percent range since April. 

 The number of unemployed, at 8.3 million, was close to 

its May and June levels. Long-term unemployment of 15 

weeks or longer edged down in July. That measure had risen 

continuously over the prior 13 months. 

 In July, approximately 4.2 million persons were 

involuntary part-time workers (that is, they would have 

preferred full-time work), an increase from June. The 

number of involuntary part-timers jumped significantly 
2

following the terrorist attacks last September, but since 

then has not shown any clear trend. 

 Services industry payrolls expanded by 50,000 in July, 

largely due to continued growth (+29,000) in health 

services. Elsewhere in the services division, employment 

in help supply services declined in July. From February 

through June, this industry had added 145,000 jobs. 

 Construction employment fell by 30,000 on a seasonally 

adjusted basis in July. Job losses occurred throughout the 

industry. 

 Employment in other major private-sector industries 

was little changed in July. For the manufacturing industry 

(-7,000), July was the fourth consecutive month in which 

job losses were less than 30,000; they had averaged 109,000 

per month in 2001. Over the month, several manufacturing 

industries saw some minor improvement over recent 

employment trends. These included rubber and plastics, 

printing and publishing, and electrical equipment. Motor 

vehicle manufacturers registered some job losses in July, 

and declines continued in aircraft manufacturing. The 

manufacturing workweek shrank by four-tenths of an hour to 

40.7 hours, more than erasing the June gain. Factory 

overtime also declined, down by two-tenths of an hour to 

4.1 hours. 
3

Average hourly earnings for production or 

nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls were up 

by 4 cents over the month to $14.79. Over the year, 

average hourly earnings increased by 3.2 percent. 

Overall, the labor market held steady again in July 

and has exhibited no signs of either significant 

deterioration or marked improvement in the past several 

months.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Forms
S-8 No. 333-87060, 333-36070, 333-26379, 33-77968, and 33-40414 of our reports dated December 9, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Woodhead Industries, Inc., Woodhead Industries, Inc.s managements
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Woodhead Industries, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
October 1, 2005.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|Ernst & Young LLP    
|                     
|Chicago, Illinois    
|May 2, 2006          



68
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-11353

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 11, 2013.

Peggy Morris Ronca, Karen L. Gable, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Maria Guzman, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before CARNES, BARKETT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Rodriguez appeals his 97-month sentence, imposed at the low end of the applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to one count of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b)(2). On appeal, Rodriguez argues his sentence is unreasonable because it is based on the, fundamentally flawed U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 guideline.

*842We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We first ensure the sentence was procedurally reasonable. *Gall,*128 S.Ct. at 597. Once we determine a sentence is procedurally sound, we examine whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. *Id.*“The party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.” *United States v. Tome,*611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir.2010).

Rodriguez has challenged his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court relied on U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2. We have rejected the argument that § 2G2.2 is flawed. *See United States v. Wayerski,*624 F.3d 1342, 1354 (11th Cir.2010); *United States v. Irey,*612 F.3d 1160, 1212 n. 32 (11th Cir. 2010) *(en banc)-, United States v. Pugh,*515 F.3d 1179, 1201 n. 15 (11th Cir.2008). Thus, Rodriguez’s argument that the child pornography guidelines are inherently flawed is unavailing as it is foreclosed by prior precedent. *United States v. Kaley,*579 F.3d 1246, 1255 (11th Cir.2009). Moreover, Rodriguez’s sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. *Gall,*128 S.Ct. at 597. Because Rodriguez has not met his burden of showing an abuse of discretion, we affirm his sentence as reasonable.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32





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





The undersigned, who are the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer of Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the accompanying Form 10-Q of the issuer fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.





November 12, 2010





/s/L. Andrew Westbrook, III------------------------------------------------L. Andrew Westbrook, IIIChief Executive Officer/s/Robert E. Dye, Jr.------------------------------------------------Robert E. Dye, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### BATES MFG. CO. v. BATES MACH. CO. et al.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

July 18, 1903.)

Robinson, Biddle & Ward, for the motion.

Alfred B. Carpart, opposed.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Complainant may take preliminary injunction against “directly or indirectly using or causing to be used, selling or causing to be sold, any machines or apparatus of the model represented by the exhibit submitted on motion (marked ‘T. M. S.'), embodying, constructing, or operating in accordance with, the inventions or improvements set forth in the letters patent in suit, and not licensed by complainant.”
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 37589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16908]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 5, 2017.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Equity Bancshares, Inc., Wichita, Kansas; to acquire 100 percent 
of the voting shares of Cache Holdings, Inc., parent of Patriot Bank, 
both of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
    2. Equity Bancshares, Inc., Wichita, Kansas; to acquire, through 
its subsidiary, ENB Merger Sub, Inc., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 100 
percent of the voting shares of Eastman National Bancshares, Inc., and 
thereby acquire The Eastman National Bank of Newkirk, both of Newkirk, 
Oklahoma.
    In connection with this application, ENB Merger Sub, Inc., Oklahoma 
City, Oklahoma, has applied to become a bank holding company
    3. National Bank Holdings Corporation, Greenwood Village, Colorado; 
to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Peoples, Inc., Lawrence, 
Kansas, and thereby indirectly acquire Peoples National Bank, Colorado 
Springs, Colorado, and Peoples Bank, Lawrence, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 7, 
2017.
Yao-Chin Chao,
Assistant Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-16908 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

  In connection with theReport on Form 10-Q of TMP Inland Empire VI, (the “Company”) forthe period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, John Fonseca,certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

```

           1.    The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of  Section
                 13(a)  or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934; and
```

```

           2.    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                 all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                 operations of the Company Intentionally omitted;
```

                                            Date: May 20, 2005                         By:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      15,464,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,227,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,420,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    544,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,015,000
<PP&E>                                      17,141,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (11,698,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,410,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,749,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,913,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,410,000
<SALES>                                     58,215,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,215,000
<CGS>                                       37,480,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,480,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            18,531,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,085,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (581,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,940,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,802,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,138,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,138,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1171

_____________________________

TROY LEE PARKER JR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.

November 30, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              26
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                        85
<INVENTORY>                                      8,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,415
<PP&E>                                          10,647
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,215
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,286
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,434
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,671
<SALES>                                         42,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,590
<CGS>                                           35,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    999
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                974
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       974
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>