alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner Daniel B. Maffei\u2019s Report on the U.S.-Japan Bilateral Meeting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TGA43f0Pnu\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-daniel-b-maffeis-report-on-the-u-s-japan-bilateral-meeting\/\">Commissioner Daniel B. Maffei\u2019s Report on the U.S.-Japan Bilateral Meeting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-daniel-b-maffeis-report-on-the-u-s-japan-bilateral-meeting\/embed\/#?secret=TGA43f0Pnu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Daniel B. Maffei\u2019s Report on the U.S.-Japan Bilateral Meeting” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"TGA43f0Pnu\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MEI CHEN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71094

Agency No. A095-673-936

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Mei Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)

decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8

FILED

JAN 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

U.S.C § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility

findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the

petition for review.

The agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence

because at Chen’s airport interview Chen relied solely on her participation in Falun

Gong and omitted any mention of fear based on China’s family planning policies. 

See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004) (sworn airport interview

statement was a reliable impeachment source that supported adverse credibility

determination); id. at 962 (as long as one of the identified grounds is supported by

substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim, we are bound to accept the

agency’s adverse credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Chen’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found

not credible and she points to no other evidence in the record to show it is more

likely than not that she would be tortured in China, her CAT claim fails. See

Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Debra Taylor JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEIN MART, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-13338.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 5, 2008.

Richard E. Johnson, Law Office of Richard E. Johnson, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kevin E. Hyde, Ernst A. Bell, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and HILL, Circuit Judges.

*932PER CURIAM:

Having carefully considered the record, the briefs of the parties, and having heard oral argument, we VACATE and REMAND to allow the district court to complete the record. The district court should be guided by our prior decision in *Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, N.A.,*859 F.2d 865 (11th Cir.1988). Appellant’s Motion to Certify Question to Florida Supreme Court is therefore DENIED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ruben ALVAREZ-AYALA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-41182

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ruben Alvarez-Ayala (Alvarez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Alvarez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses *925no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### Jesse Spellman, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants.

[666 NYS2d 600]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 5, 1996, in plaintiffs favor in the amount of $3,526,640.56, which brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 15, 1995, that, *inter alia,*denied defendants’ cross-motion to set aside the trial court’s prior order striking their answer, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the cross-motion granted on condition that defendants pay $30,000 to plaintiffs attorney within 60 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry and, on compliance therewith, the matter remanded for a new trial.

We find that it was an improvident exercise of discretion to impose the ultimate sanction, the striking of defendants’ answer, in this negligence action of seemingly questionable liability in which plaintiff, while on the subway tracks of the elevated 170th Street station on the No. 4 line, was struck by a train, resulting in the severing of both of his legs above the *198knee. A test performed on plaintiff upon his arrival at the hospital revealed a blood alcohol level of .245% approximately two and one-half times the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle. According to the hospital records, plaintiff gave a number of inconsistent accounts as to the happening of the accident. Ultimately, at trial, plaintiff’s counsel, in his opening, proceeded on the theory that plaintiff was a mugging victim who had been thrown or pushed onto the tracks. The striking of the answer of defendants, New York City Transit Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority, was based on their failure to comply, until after the trial had commenced, with discovery orders relating to photographs of the scene and videotapes simulating the train run. The court found that plaintiffs counsel, in opening to the jury, had alleged a criminal attack on plaintiff on the basis of circumstantial evidence weaker than would have been the case had the photographs been made available since, arguably, they might have provided corroborating evidence of the criminal assault theory. The court found defendants’ non-compliance to be a matter of an ongoing and repeated disregard of their discovery obligations, that defendants’ conduct had been willful and that the progress of the trial had been unduly hampered. We find no support in the record for the conclusion that defendants’ conduct with regard to their discovery obligations was willful and contumacious. Moreover, the striking of defendants’ answer, in terms of effect, amounted to a $3,526,640.56 sanction.

In reversing the order striking the answer and money judgment that inevitably followed, we impose, as a condition, a $30,000 payment to plaintiffs counsel, who, we were advised on argument, expended considerable sums in the preparation and trial of this matter. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Instructions for Participating in FMC Hearing Examining Impacts from Threats to Shipping","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TyJ48NbksR\"><a href=\"\/instructions-for-participating-in-fmc-hearing-examining-impacts-from-threats-to-shipping\/\">Instructions for Participating in FMC Hearing Examining Impacts from Threats to Shipping<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/instructions-for-participating-in-fmc-hearing-examining-impacts-from-threats-to-shipping\/embed\/#?secret=TyJ48NbksR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Instructions for Participating in FMC Hearing Examining Impacts from Threats to Shipping” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"TyJ48NbksR\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lamarr Pate MURPHY, a/k/a Bandana Red, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-4959.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 4, 2013.

Decided: Dec. 3, 2013.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lamarr Pate Murphy pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm after sustaining a prior conviction for an offense punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Murphy to 120 months of imprisonment, with twenty-four months to run concurrently with any sentence Murphy would receive for pend*273ing related state charges. Murphy now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

Murphy argues on appeal that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not impose a sentence entirely concurrent to the anticipated state sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also United States v. Layton,*564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.2009). A district court has the discretion to impose a federal sentence concurrent with, consecutive to, or partially concurrent with any anticipated state sentence. *See Setser v. United States,*— U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 1468-69, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012). In deciding whether to run a sentence concurrently or consecutively to another sentence, the court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b).

Here, the district court recognized its authority to sentence Murphy either consecutively to, concurrently, or partially concurrently with the anticipated state sentence, thoroughly considered and discussed the parties’ arguments and the § 3553(a) factors, and exhaustively explained the chosen sentence. Based on the factors discussed by the district court, we conclude that the court’s within-Guidelines sentence imposed partially concurrent with the not-yet-imposed state sentence is substantively reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 the Report of PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the nine month period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey P. McMullen, President and Chief Executive 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 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.

| |                                       |  |  | 
| | ------------------------------------- |  |  | 
| |                                       |  |  | 
| |                                       | 
| | /s/ Jeffrey P. McMullen*              | 
| | Jeffrey P. McMullen                   | 
| | President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|

Date: November 9, 2007



* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 the Quarterly Report of Baynon International
Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Pasquale Catizone, President of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Pasquale Catizone
------------------------------------------
Pasquale Catizone
President
(Principal Executive Officer)
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40976

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE DE JESUS BAENA-AGUILAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-115-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose De Jesus Baena-Aguilar (Baena) appeals his illegal

reentry conviction, challenging the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(1), (2). Baena’s constitutional challenge is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998). Although Baena contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such
No. 05-40976

-2-

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. 

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Baena properly concedes

that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and

circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for

further review.

AFFIRMED.
#### A S J INTEREST, L.L.C.; Eleanor Simmons Childrens Trust; Eleanor Simmons Marital Trust; Mary Daniell Long Bryant; Jonathan E.B. Long; Thomas W.B. Long; Ned A. Stewart, Jr.; Beatrice Stewart Speer Estate; Madison Interests, L.L.C.; Stewart M. Madison; James R. Madison; F & G Investments, L.L.P., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHESAPEAKE LOUISIANA, L.P., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-30717.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 23, 2013.

James R. Madison, John M. Madison, Jr., Esq., Charles Edward Tabor, Esq., Wiener, Weiss & Madison, A.P.C., Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Michael Beatty Donald, Esq., Nicole M. Duarte, Esq., Jones Walker LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by that court.

*409Appellants contend that the parties had a binding lease contract when the attorney for the plaintiff and the landman for Chesapeake agreed in May of 2011 that a lease of section 33 would be made on the same terms as the prior lease of section 34 between the same parties. Clearly the agreement at that time was to make a future lease. The written lease had to be prepared and signed, with the bonus payment made, all as before. Appellants say the absence of an express agreement to await more made the May oral agreement enforceable. There is no evidence of Chesapeake consenting to a final lease contract at that time, and Louisiana law provides that even an agreement *to lease*is not binding if the parties contemplate more. See La. Civil Code articles 1947 and 2670. The parties did contemplate more, but more failed to happen.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *409the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 the quarterly report of Freestone Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and



2.

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Dated:  July 16, 2007



/s/ James F. Carroll



Name: James F. Carroll

Title:  Chief Executive Officer







Dated:  July 16, 2007



/s/ James F. Carroll



Name: James F. Carroll

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth WINNINGHAM, also known as Kenneth Shuland, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40032

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

James Mack Noble, IV, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kenneth Winningham, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Kenneth Winningham on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Winningham has filed a response and a motion for the appointment of new counsel. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Winningham’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Winningham’s response discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Winningham’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 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.