alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 10, 2010

Decided March 10, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 09

‐ 2357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

JUAN ALBERTO CASTILLO,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division

No. 05 CR 601

‐ 8

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Juan Alberto Castillo pleaded guilty to conspiring to import 1 kilogram or more of

heroin into the United States, see 21 U.S.C. § 963; 18 U.S.C. § 2, and received a sentence of

120 months’ imprisonment. In his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his

conviction and sentence. He filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel seeks to

withdraw under Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he cannot identify any

nonfrivolous argument to pursue. Castillo responded to his lawyer’s submissions. See C IR

.

R. 51(b). We limit our review to the potential issues identified in the facially adequate brief NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 09

‐ 2357 Page 2

submitted by counsel and in Castillo’s response. See United States v. Schuh

, 289 F.3d 968,

973

‐ 74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Castillo has provided no hint that he wishes to have his guilty plea set aside, so

counsel rightly omits a discussion of the plea’s voluntariness or the plea colloquy. See

United States v. Knox

, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002).

Both counsel and Castillo consider whether Castillo could challenge his sentence.

Counsel focuses on the possible applicability of a safety

‐ valve reduction, see U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2, and Castillo on the calculation of his criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1.

Both of these arguments, however, are foreclosed by the appeal waiver. If the guilty plea

stands, so does the waiver. See Nunez v. United States

, 546 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2008).

Finally, counsel, who did not represent Castillo at trial, also considers whether

Castillo could argue that his trial counsel was ineffective. But a challenge to the adequacy

of counsel’s performance is best explored in a collateral proceeding so that a more complete

record can be developed. See Massaro v. United States

, 538 U.S. 500, 504

‐ 05 (2003); United

States v. Harris

, 394 F.3d 543, 557

‐ 58 (7th Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS

Castillo’s appeal.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 946 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of 

horses in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing 2 or 

more levels stacked on top of one another. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 15, 2015 

Mr. KIRK (for himself and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses in interstate transportation in a 

motor vehicle containing 2 or more levels stacked on 

top of one another. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Transport for 

5 Horses Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES. 

7 Section 80502 of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 946 IS

1 (1) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘This section 

2 does not’’ and inserting ‘‘Subsections (a) and (b) 

3 shall not’’; 

4 (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub5 section (e); 

6 (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(d) TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES.— 

9 ‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—No person may transport, 

10 or cause to be transported, a horse from a place in 

11 a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or 

12 possession of the United States through or to a 

13 place in another State, the District of Columbia, or 

14 a territory or possession of the United States in a 

15 motor vehicle containing 2 or more levels stacked on 

16 top of each other. 

17 ‘‘(2) MOTOR VEHICLE DEFINED.—In this sub18 section, the term ‘motor vehicle’— 

19 ‘‘(A) means a vehicle driven or drawn by 

20 mechanical power and manufactured primarily 

21 for use on public highways; and 

22 ‘‘(B) does not include a vehicle operated 

23 exclusively on a rail or rails.’’; and 

24 (4) in subsection (e), as redesignated— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 946 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘A rail carrier’’ and insert2 ing the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A rail carrier’’; 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘this section’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘subsection (a) or (b)’’; and 

6 (C) by striking ‘‘On learning’’ and insert7 ing the following: 

8 ‘‘(2) TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES IN MULTI9 LEVEL TRAILER.— 

10 ‘‘(A) CIVIL PENALTY.—A person that 

11 knowingly violates subsection (d) is liable to the 

12 United States Government for a civil penalty of 

13 at least $100, but not more than $500, for each 

14 such violation. A separate violation of sub15 section (d) occurs for each horse that is trans16 ported, or caused to be transported, in violation 

17 of subsection (d). 

18 ‘‘(B) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.— 

19 The penalty imposed under subparagraph (A) 

20 shall be in addition to any penalty or remedy 

21 available under any other law or common law. 

22 ‘‘(3) CIVIL ACTION.—On learning’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION*In connection with the Quarterly Report of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Steven C. Futrell, President and CEOof the Corporation, and Kendall W. Rieman, Treasurer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of their knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, theconsolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation and itssubsidiary.        /s/ Steven C. Futrell /s/ Kendall W. Rieman     Steven C. Futrell, President and CEO Kendall W. Rieman, Treasurer (Principal Executive Officer) (Principal Financial Officer)     Date: July 26, 2007 Date: July 26, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 82 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 82

  To suspend sales of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum 
               Reserve until certain conditions are met.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2015

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend sales of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum 
               Reserve until certain conditions are met.

    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 ``Strategic Petroleum Supplies Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON SALES FROM THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
Administration shall not authorize a sale of petroleum products from 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve established under part B of title I of 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.) until 
the date on which all permits necessary under Executive Order 13337 (3 
U.S.C. 301 note; relating to issuance of permits with respect to 
certain energy-related facilities and land transportation crossings on 
the international boundaries of the United States) for the Keystone XL 
pipeline project application filed on September 19, 2008 (including 
amendments), have been issued.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not affect any obligations of 
the United States under the international energy program.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit (23)(e)

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-76347) pertaining to Employee Savings and Incentive Plan of
Consumers Energy Company and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No.
333-73922 and Form S-4 No. 333-111220) of Consumers Energy Company and in the
related Prospectuses of our report dated February 27, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Consumers Energy Corporation
and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A-1) for the year
ended December 31, 2003.

                                                          /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Detroit, Michigan
July 19, 2004
Order entered May 2 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00687
- CR
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL DUCHARME, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199
- 80054
- 2018



### O RDER
We REINSTATE this appeal.
On January 24, 2019, we abated this appeal and ordered the trial court to hold a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief , initially due November 28, 2018, ha d not been filed. On April 30, 2019, we received the trial court’s findings of fact and order from the February 1, 2019 hearing

. We ADOPT the trial court’s findings that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal and that appointe d counsel Lara E. Bracamonte has not abandoned the appeal. The trial court recommended that counsel be given “an additional 30 days to file the brief,” and “ directed that the brief be filed

. . . no later than March 1, 2019. ” The trial court signed the o rder on April 30,2019. To date, no brief has been filed and we have had no communication from Ms.

Bracamonte.
We ORDER appointed counsel Lara E. Bracamonte to file appellant’s brief BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 13 , 2 019 . Ms. Bracamonte is cautioned that the Co urt will not entertain any further motions from her for any extensions of time in this case. If Ms. Bracamonte does not file a brief by 5:00 p.m. on May 13 , 201 9 , the Court will initiate contempt proceedings against h er for the failure and refusal to obey the Court’s order . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8 (b)(4). The Court may also take such other actions as may be appropriate, including removing Ms. Bracamonte from the appeal or filing a grievance against her and referring this matter to the State Bar of
Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline for further p roceedings.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Angela Tucker , Presiding Judge, 199th Judicial District Court ; Lara E. Bracamonte ; to the Collin County District Attorney ; and to Ch ristopher Michael Ducharme, TDCJ#02202213, Stevenson Unit, 1525 FM 766, Cuero, TX 77954

.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 28 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 28

To establish the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies 
for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of 
                 the United States on January 20, 2017.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 20, 2016

    Mr. Blunt (for himself and Mr. Schumer) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
To establish the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies 
for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of 
                 the United States on January 20, 2017.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

    There is established a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as the ``joint committee'') 
consisting of 3 Senators and 3 Members of the House of Representatives, 
to be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, respectively. The joint committee is 
authorized to make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of 
the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United States on 
January 20, 2017.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.

    The joint committee--
            (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equipment and the 
        services of appropriate personnel of departments and agencies 
        of the Federal Government, under arrangements between the joint 
        committee and the heads of those departments and agencies, in 
        connection with the inaugural proceedings and ceremonies; and
            (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods and services to 
        carry out its responsibilities.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered April 8, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00404
- CV
ROBERT T. O’ DONNELL, Appellant
V. JULIA L. VARGO, Appellee On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. DF
- 86
- 15027 

### O RDER
On September 29, 2014, Michelle May O’Neil, lead counsel for appellant, Robert T. O’Donnell, filed a brief on appellant’s behalf. On March 31, 2015, O’Neil filed a verified motion to withdraw as appellant’s counsel stating as grounds that she is unable to effectively communicate with her client in a manner consistent with good attorney

- client relations and that appellant has failed to meet the terms and conditions of the engagement contract between appellant and counsel’s firm, Godwin Lewis P.C. O’Neil states in her motion to withdraw that she sent appellant a copy of the motion, including a list of all deadlines and settings in the appeal , pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5(a)(3) & (b) and informed appellant of his right to object to the motion pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5(a)(4)

. As of the date of this Order, April 8, 2015, appellant has not responded to O’Neil’s motion oradvised the Court that he has obtained substitute counsel. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5 (a)(4), (d). Accordingly, we GRANT O’Neil’s motion and ORDER that Michelle May O’Neil is WITHDRAWN as appellant’s counsel in this appeal. We DIRECT Michelle May O’Neil to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c).

/s/ ELIZABET H LANG

- MIERS PRESIDING JUSTICE
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1545** 

CYNTHIA C. WILLIAMSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., a/k/a Progress Energy, Inc. , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:10

- cv - 00258

- BO )

Submitted : October 1, 2012 Decided: November 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Sandra J
. Polin , LAW OFFICE OF SANDRA J
. POLIN , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. J . Travis Hockaday , Zebulon D
. Anderson , SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHEL L & JERNIGAN, L . L . P . , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cynthia C. Williamson appeals the district court ’ s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on her action alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.
§ § 2000e to 2000e

- 17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2012). We have reviewed the rec ord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williamson v. Carolina Power & Light Co. , No. 5:10

- cv - 00258

- BO (E.D.N.C.
Mar. 28, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal co ntentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### United States *v.*Colgate.

*(Circuit*Court, *S. D. New York.*

August 9, 1884.

Injunction—Infringement—Litigated Patent.

The United States cannot be heard to ask an injunction restraining the commencement or prosecution of suits for infringement of a patent, for the repeal of which they have begun an action.

In Equity.

*Elihu Root,*U. S. Atty., *Charles M. Da Costa,*and *Wager Swayne,*for orator.

*Frederic H. Betts,*for defendant.

Wheeler, J.

This suit is brought by direction of the attorney general, to repeal letters patent granting exclusive rights to inventions, and has now been heard on a motion fora preliminary injunction to restrain commencement or prosecution of suits for infringement. The patent has expired, and no injunction is asked against assignment of the patent. The' right to maintain such a suit is placed upon the same ground as that to repeal a patent for land. *U. S.*v. *Gunning,*18 Fed. Rep. 511. In a suit to vacate a patent for land it would hardly be claimed that the patentee should be restrained from preventing, or prosecuting suits for, trespasses to the land during the pendency of the suit. Such acts would work no injury to the title or property of the United States in question in the suit. The United States deals with the lands as a proprietor, and brings such suits to be restored to its proprietary rights. *U. S.*v. *Schurz,*102 U. S. 378; *U. S.*v. *Stone,*2 Wall. 525. Protection of the property would not impair those rights. Infringement of a patent is a trespass upon the exclusive rights granted. The United States, as an owner or proprietor, has no interest in promoting such trespasses; and their prevention, or the prosecution of suits for their commission, cannot be an injury to the United States as a proprietor. If the patent is repealed the suits may fall, or may not; but whether they do or not is a matter entirely between the parties to the suits, and not at all between the United States and either of the parties. No reason for granting the motion appears, and it must therefore be denied.

Motion denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                               GLASSMASTER COMPANY
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     For the two years ended August 31, 2002
                    (Thousands except for per share figures)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    2002       2001
                                                                    ----       ----
<S>                                                               <C>         <C>
Primary:
  Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations                        ($  543)   ($1,272)
  Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations                            0          0
                                                                  -------    -------
  Net Income (Loss)                                               ($  543)   ($1,272)
                                                                  =======    =======

Basic:
  Average Shares Outstanding                                        1,636      1,631

  Per Share Amounts:
          Continuing Operations                                   ($  .33)   ($  .78)
          Discontinued Operations                                       0          0
                                                                  -------    -------
          Net Income (Loss)                                       ($  .33)   ($  .78)

Diluted:
  Average Shares Outstanding                                        1,636      1,631
  Net effect of dilutive stock options under the treasury stock
   method using the average market price                                0          0
                                                                  -------    -------
      Total                                                         1,636      1,631

  Per Share Amounts:
          Continuing Operations                                   ($  .33)   ($  .78)
          Discontinued Operations                                       0          0
                                                                  -------    -------
          Net Income (Loss)                                       ($  .33)   ($  .78)
</TABLE>







                                       30
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COVEN EARL GABRIEL-VICK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:09-cr-00157-BO-1; 5:10-cv-00570-BO)

Submitted: June 2, 2011 Decided: June 9, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Coven Earl Gabriel-Vick, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon 

James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Coven Earl Gabriel-Vick seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Gabriel-Vick 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 
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED