alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW P. SHOLTES, Naval Consolidated Brig,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary of the Navy,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 18

- 56110

D.C. No.

3:18

- cv

- 01330

- MMA

- BLM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 7, 2019 **
Pasadena, California

Before: FARRIS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and KENDALL, *** District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

*** The Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

NOV 12 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Andrew P. Sholtes (“Sholtes”) appeals the district court's denial of his

petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging the military trial judge

erred in failing to admit evidence at trial of the victim's sexual history and

disposition and drug use in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The

parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 12 9 1 . W e affirm the district court.

We review de novo the d ismissal of Sholtes’s habeas petition. Alaimalo v.

United States , 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The narrow

question in reviewing a petition for habeas from a prisoner confined pu rsuant to a

court martial is whether the military proceedings have “dealt fully and fairly with

an allegation raised in that application.” Burns v. Wilson , 346 U.S. 137, 142

(1953).

The military proceedings easily meet this standard. In a thorough 19

- page

analysis, the Navy

- Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ("NMCCA")

addresse d Sholtes' s claims and sub

- claims, identifying the relevant legal standard

and applying it to the facts before making its conclusion. Sholtes does not raise any

new claims not considered by the NMCAA.

Sholtes additionally argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing

his petition. A district court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition when “it

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled” to3

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243 . It is plain from Sholtes' s petition

— which incorporates the

NMCAA decision in its entirety

— that the military proceedings "fully and fairly"

considered his claims. Thus, the district court did not err when it summ arily

dismissed his petition.

AFFIRMED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 33 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 33

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
 relating to the definition of the term ``fiduciary'' and the conflict 
     of interest rule with respect to retirement investment advice.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 18, 2016

  Mr. Isakson (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. 
Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Coats, 
   Mr. Cochran, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Ernst, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. 
 Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Lee, Mr. 
McConnell, Mr. Moran, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Paul, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Roberts, 
 Mr. Rubio, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Scott, 
  and Mr. Sasse) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
 read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
                              and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
 relating to the definition of the term ``fiduciary'' and the conflict 
     of interest rule with respect to retirement investment advice.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of 
the term ``fiduciary'' and the conflict of interest rule with respect 
to retirement investment advice (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 20946 (April 
8, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Section 1350 Certification -- Principal Financial Officer**

 

**Citizens Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Citizens Financial Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Len E. Schweitzer, Vice President, Treasurer 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, to the best of my knowledge: 

 

1.    The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| By:    | /s/ Len E. Schweitzer                                 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Len E. Schweitzer                                     |
|   | Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

Date: May 11, 2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Citizens Financial Corporation and will be retained by CFC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-21-00145-CR

JOSHUA WADE BRIGGS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-20-27901

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After the jury returned a verdict finding Joshua Wade Briggs guilty of the first-degreefelony offense of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit a felony other than theft,

1

Briggs agreed to waive his right of appeal in exchange for a twenty-year sentence. Briggs signed 

a waiver stating that he “[w]aiv[ed] the right to appeal to the Court of Appeals or Court of 

Criminal Appeals.” Briggs testified at the hearing on sentencing that he understood that the jury 

found him guilty and that he understood the applicable sentencing range of five to ninety-nine

years or life in prison. Briggs further testified that he understood that, if a jury were to assess 

punishment, it could recommend community supervision if it imposed a sentence of ten years or 

less. Briggs testified that he reached an agreement for twenty years in prison and that, in 

exchange, he would give up his right to appeal. Briggs was informed of the full extent of his 

appellate rights and testified that he agreed to give up those rights. 

“A court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over and must dismiss an appeal when the 

defendant has validly waived his right of appeal.” Lopez v. State, 595 S.W.3d 897, 899 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d) (citing Jones v. State, 488 S.W.3d 801, 808 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2016)); see also Freeman v. State, 913 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995, pet. 

ref’d). Further, pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court is 

required to dismiss an appeal if, as in this case, the trial court’s certification indicates no right of 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

1TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(d). 
3

We informed Briggs of this apparent defect in our jurisdiction over his appeal and 

afforded him an opportunity to respond and, if possible, cure such defect. Briggs’s response to 

our letter conceded that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Briggs clearly waived his right of appeal, which deprives this Court of jurisdiction over 

this attempted appeal, and the trial court’s certification confirms Briggs’s waiver of his rights. 

Because we find that we are without jurisdiction over this matter as a result of Briggs’s waiver of 

the right of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Charles van Cleef

Justice

Date Submitted: May 11, 2022

Date Decided: May 12, 2022

Do Not Publish
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 15267 and # 15268; TEXAS Disaster Number TX-00485]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Texas dated August 24, 2017.
 DATES: Issued on August 24, 2017. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/23/2017. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/24/2018.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. *Incident:*
                     Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, Heavy Rains, Hail and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                     06/30/2017 through 07/04/2017. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Hockley. *Contiguous Counties:*
                     Texas. Bailey, Cochran, Hale, Lamb, Lubbock, Lynn, Terry, Yoakum. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.875Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.938Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
6.430Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.215Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.215Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15267 B and for economic injury is 15268 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Texas. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Dated: August 24, 2017. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2017-18625 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
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. 08-60444

Conference Calendar

DONALD MCARTHUR JONES

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JEAN KIRKWOOD; RONALD KING; CHRISTOPHER B EPPS,

COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:06-CV-109

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Donald McArthur Jones, former Mississippi prisoner # K3202, has filed a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. By moving for IFP, Jones is challenging the

district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60444

2

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into

Jones’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points

arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). 

Because Jones’s brief does not address the reasons for the district court’s

certification decision or the basis of the district court’s dismissal, it is the same

as if he had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Jones has not

demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard, 707

F.2d at 219-20. Accordingly, Jones’s motion to proceed IFP is denied. See

Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24. Because his appeal is frivolous, see Howard, 707

F.2d at 219-20, his appeal is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Jones’s motion for

preparation of the transcript at government expense is denied. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 753(f); Harvey v. Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 1985). 

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.

1996). Jones has one prior strike. See Jones v. Smith, 234 F. App’x 249, 250 (5th

Cir. 2007). We caution Jones that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not

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

detained in any facility unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury.” § 1915(g).

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.
CL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0156

CITY OF GREAT FALLS, 

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

HANNAH ROSE KUNTZ,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including October 13, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 5 2023

09/05/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0156
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 900 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 900

   To require auto dealers to fix outstanding safety recalls before 
           selling or leasing a used passenger motor vehicle.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 13, 2015

 Mr. Blumenthal (for himself and Mr. Markey) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require auto dealers to fix outstanding safety recalls before 
           selling or leasing a used passenger motor vehicle.

    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 ``Used Car Safety Recall Repair Act''.

SEC. 2. USED PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE CONSUMER PROTECTION.

    Section 30120 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(k) Limitation on Sale or Lease of Used Passenger Motor 
Vehicles.--(1) A dealer may not sell or lease a used passenger motor 
vehicle until any defect or noncompliance determined under section 
30118 with respect to the vehicle has been remedied.
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if--
            ``(A) the recall information regarding a used passenger 
        motor vehicle was not accessible at the time of sale or lease 
        using the means established by the Secretary under section 
        31301 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 
        (49 U.S.C. 30166 note); or
            ``(B) notification of the defect or noncompliance is 
        required under section 30118(b), but enforcement of the order 
        is set aside in a civil action to which 30121(d) applies.
    ``(3) Notwithstanding section 30102(a)(1), in this subsection--
            ``(A) the term `dealer' means a person that has sold at 
        least 10 motor vehicles to 1 or more consumers during the most 
        recent 12-month period; and
            ``(B) the term `used passenger motor vehicle' means a motor 
        vehicle that has previously been purchased other than for 
        resale.
    ``(4) By rule, the Secretary may exempt the auctioning of a used 
passenger motor vehicle from the requirements under paragraph (1) to 
the extent that the exemption does not harm public safety.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on that date that is 18 months after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     The undersigned officer of DATATRAK International, Inc. (the “Company”),does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:
1. the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and 2. the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented inthe Form 10-Q.        Dated: May 13, 2004 /s/ Terry C. Black     Terry C. Black   Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 35.1  ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013 (the Sale and Servicing Agreement) among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2013-2, as Issuer (the Issuer), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, CarMax Business Services, LLC, as
Servicer (the Servicer), and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Backup Servicer, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on May 16, 2013 and ending on February 28, 2014 and of the Servicers performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made
under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing
Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officers
Certificate this 23rd day of May, 2014.



CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC/s/ Thomas W. ReedyThomas W. ReedyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Advisory Board, September 12, 2017, 1:00 p.m. to September 12, 
2017, 4:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute--Shady Grove, 9609 Medical 
Center Drive, Conference Room TE406 and TE408, Rockville, MD, 20850 
(Virtual Meeting) which was published in the Federal Register on August 
14, 2017, 82 FR 37885.
    The meeting notice is amended to change the times of the open and 
closed sessions. The open session will end at 2:15 p.m. The closed 
session will begin at 2:30 p.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. The meeting is 
partially closed to the public.

    Dated: August 30, 2017.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-18804 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P