alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10488 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARK JULIAN EDMONDS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CR-370-1-T

-------------------- March 13, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mark Julian Edmonds appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in denying his motions to dismiss the superseding indictment as the result of vindictive prosecution and as multiplicitous, respectively. The district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the search of Edmonds’ bag was done incident to his arrest and because the bag was in Edmonds’ immediate area ofNo. 00-10488 -2- control at the time of the arrest. See New York v. Belton , 453 U.S. 454, 460-62 (1981); United States v. Prudhome , 13 F.3d 147, 148-49 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Tellez , 11 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court likewise did not err in denying the motion to dismiss for vindictiveness because Edmonds has not attempted to demonstrate any vindictiveness on the federal prosecutor’s part and has not challenged the district court’s finding that any vindictiveness on the state prosecutor’s part was irrelevant to the instant case. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, even if it is assumed that counts one and two of the superseding indictment were multiplicitous, any error arising out of the district court’s denial of Edmonds’ motion to dismiss was harmless because he was acquitted of one of the allegedly multiplicitous counts. See United States v. Nguyen , 28 F.3d 477, 482 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED. Edmonds’ motion for leave to file a supplemental pro se brief is
DENIED. See 5th Cir. R. 28.7. AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
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 TrimFast Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended as of September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report")
the undersigned in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies that pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to his knowledge:

         1. The Registrant fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information
contained in this Report presents in all material respects, the financial
conditions and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:   November 17, 2004

/s/ Kenneth Hilowitz
--------------------
Kenneth Hilowitz
President/Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer
TrimFast Group, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6204

JAMES RUSSELL,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER PRISON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(0:15-cv-00267-DCN)

Submitted: October 28, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Russell seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

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) (2012). 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 petition 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 

Russell 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
{"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 Maffei visits Ports and industry representatives while in Seattle\/Tacoma","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rodxhyMClP\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-maffei-visits-ports-and-industry-representatives-while-in-seattle-tacoma\/\">Commissioner Maffei visits Ports and industry representatives while in Seattle\/Tacoma<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-maffei-visits-ports-and-industry-representatives-while-in-seattle-tacoma\/embed\/#?secret=rodxhyMClP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Maffei visits Ports and industry representatives while in Seattle\/Tacoma” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"rodxhyMClP\" 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"}
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 71ST DISTRICT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 4th 

day of June, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Marshall Deshun Parker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00237-CR

Trial Court No. 13-0334X

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no reversible error in the judgment of 

the court below. However, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. 

Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the assessment of attorney fees. As 

modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Marshall Deshun Parker, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 31st day of July, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
{"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":"About the FMC","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7sM54snpAo\"><a href=\"\/about-the-fmc\/\">About the FMC<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/about-the-fmc\/embed\/#?secret=7sM54snpAo\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“About the FMC” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"7sM54snpAo\" 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"}
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT JOYCELYN MCVOY, AMY MCVOY SMITH, JONATHAN MCVOY AND JARED MCVOY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF JOHNNY RAY MCVOY VERSUS INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY NO. 

### 2022 CW 1201



### NOVEMBER 18, 2022 In Re: Rimcor, Inc., applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 682228. BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ.

WRIT DISMISSED. Pursuant to the unopposed motion to dismiss 

## filed by relator representing that the matter has been resolved, this writ application is hereby dismissed. MRT WRC CHH

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# 1tltTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MODERNRENEWABLETECHNOLOGIES,INC. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, NICKARROYO, President of the Company, certify, 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\
|---

|Nick Arroyo
|-----------

|Nick ArroyoPresidentPrincipal Executive OfficerDecember 15, 2009
|----------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### Reginald C. SWEAT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kevin E. WILLIAMS; Curtis Bufford, Lieutenant; Jimmy White, Official and Individual Capacities, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-6675.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 30, 2010.

Reginald C. Sweat, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Joel Steve Hughes, Davidson *&*Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald C. Sweat appeals the district court’s order rejecting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Sweat’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to exhaust, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and dismissing the action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Sweat v. Williams,*No. 9:09-cv-02041-HFF, 2010 WL 1755596 (D.S.C. Apr. 29, 2010). We deny Sweat’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin MARTINEZ-ALAVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50554.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 27, 2010.

*167Arnold Dale Blankenship, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Daniel Casillas, Law Office of Daniel Casillas, San Diego, CA, for Defendants Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Martinez-Alavarez appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Alavarez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence and by failing to address Martinez-Alavarez’s request for a downward departure. He also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not procedurally err, and the below-Guidelines range sentence is substantively reasonable. *See United States v. Carter,*560 F.3d 1107, 1117-19 (9th Cir.2009); *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home > News Articles > FMC Designates Chinese Company a Controlled Carrier

FMC Designates Chinese Company a Controlled Carrier


Posted on:


July 17, 2024 The Federal Maritime Commission today classified Anji Shipping Co. Ltd. as a controlled carrier of the People’s Republic of China and has added it to the Commission’s Controlled Carrier List. Controlled carriers are ocean common carriers operating in the U.S.-foreign trades that are, or whose operating assets are, directly or indirectly owned or controlled by a foreign government. Controlled carriers are subject to enhanced regulatory oversight by the Commission. The Controlled Carrier List is not a comprehensive list of all foreign-owned, foreign-controlled, or government linked companies and assets. It is a list of companies meeting statutory requirements found at 46 U.S.C. Chapter 407. Commission regulations related to Controlled Carriers are found at 46 C.F.R. 565.
 News Articles  Press Releases
 Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
{"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 Lidinsky\u2019s statement on 2014 Update to the FMC Report U.S. Inland Containerized Cargo Moving through Canadian and Mexican Seaports (2012)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"s3E5ALUBjj\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-lidinskys-statement-on-2014-update-to-the-fmc-report-u-s-inland-containerized-cargo-moving-through-canadian-and-mexican-seaports-2012\/\">Commissioner Lidinsky\u2019s statement on 2014 Update to the FMC Report U.S. Inland Containerized Cargo Moving through Canadian and Mexican Seaports (2012)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-lidinskys-statement-on-2014-update-to-the-fmc-report-u-s-inland-containerized-cargo-moving-through-canadian-and-mexican-seaports-2012\/embed\/#?secret=s3E5ALUBjj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Lidinsky\u2019s statement on 2014 Update to the FMC Report U.S. Inland Containerized Cargo Moving through Canadian and Mexican Seaports (2012)” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"s3E5ALUBjj\" 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"}