alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
758 S.E.2d 715

#### The STATE, Respondent, v. Ricky CHEEKS, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213690.

No. 27390.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted May 20, 2014.

Decided May 28, 2014.

*199Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney and Assistant Attorney General Mary Shannon Williams, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Ricky Cheeks seeks review of the Court of Appeals’ opinion in *State v. Cheeks,*400 S.C. 329, 733 S.E.2d 611 (Ct.App.2012), affirming his convictions and sentences and finding the trial judge did not err in charging the jury that “actual knowledge of the presence of crack cocaine is strong evidence of a defendant’s intent to control its disposition or use.” Based on earlier precedent of this Court, the Court of Appeals determined the jury charge did not negate the mere presence charge that Cheeks was entitled to. *See State v. Kimbrell,*
      *200294 S.C. 51, 362 S.E.2d 630 (1987); *Solomon v. State,*313 S.C. 526, 443 S.E.2d 540 (1994).

Following the issuance of the Court of Appeals’ opinion, this Court, in *State v. Cheeks,*401 S.C. 322, 737 S.E.2d 480 (2013), affirmed co-defendant Derrick Cheeks’ convictions and sentences; however, this Court held the “strong evidence” charge unduly emphasized the evidence, and deprived the jury of its prerogative to draw inferences and to weigh evidence. This Court stated the charge converted all persons merely present who have actual knowledge of the drugs on the premises into possessors of that drug and largely negated the mere presence charge, and erroneously conveyed that a mere permissible evidentiary inference was, instead, a proposition of law.

Based on *State v. Derrick Cheeks,*we find the same charge was improper in the case at hand. However, we also find petitioner was not prejudiced by the charge. There was no evidence that petitioner was “merely present;” rather, petitioner provided financial assistance to the drug operation, aided and abetted the operation, and was in actual possession of the drugs. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ opinion is

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3181 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 

using the hiring authority under section 207 of the Public Health Service 

Act to hire or pay new employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2021 

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from using the hiring authority under section 207 of the Public Health Service Act to hire or 

pay new employees, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Health and Human 

5 Services Hiree Clarification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HIRING AUTHORITY RESTRICTED. 

7 The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

8 Agency may not hire or pay the salary or expense of any 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3181 IH

1 officer or employee of the Environmental Protection Agen2 cy under subsection (f) or (g) of section 207 of the Public 

3 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 209) who is not already 

4 receiving pay under either such subsection on the date of 

5 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfonso Humberto GONZALEZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50162.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 2013.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alfonso Humberto Gonzalez-Medina appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction for importation of 50 kilograms of more or marijuana. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court sentenced him to 30 months of imprisonment, the bottom of his advisory guidelines range, and three years of nonreporting supervised release.

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Because Gonzalez-Medina’s sentence was within his advisory guidelines range, his sentence is presumptively reasonable. *See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 *F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.*2008). Gonzalez-Medina first contends that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to within-guidelines sentences calculated under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the guideline which applies to drug offenses such as his, because § 2D1.1 is not based on empirical data or sentencing research. That argument is foreclosed under circuit precedent. *See United States v. Duarte,*569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); *United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.2009).

*575Next, Gonzalez-Medina argues that his 30-month sentence was substantively unreasonable because § 2D1.1 lacks an empirical basis, he was a first time offender with a limited role in a nonviolent drug crime, he became involved in the drug operation because of financial difficulties, the collateral consequences of his conviction included losing his Laser Visa card and becoming subject to removal from the United States, and his age made it unlikely that he would commit future crimes.

The district court listened to Gonzalez-Medina’s arguments for a lesser sentence but found that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” *United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.2008). Gonzalez-Medina has not shown that his sentence was an abuse of discretion. *See id.*

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 the 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**





I,
      Scott
      R. Oglum, Chief Executive Officer of Theater Xtreme entertainment Group, Inc.,
      hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2006:





(1)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      that
      the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Theater Xtreme
      Entertainment Group, Inc.




Dated:
      May 15, 2006





/s/
                Scott R. OglumScott
                R. Oglum, Chief Executive Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed
      filed
      by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to liability under that Section.
      This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
      any
      filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent
      that this certification is expressly incorporated by reference into any such
      filing.
{"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":"Protect Your Packages This Holiday Season","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GiVhNoLZb1\"><a href=\"\/protect-your-packages-this-holiday-season\/\">Protect Your Packages This Holiday Season<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/protect-your-packages-this-holiday-season\/embed\/#?secret=GiVhNoLZb1\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Protect Your Packages This Holiday Season” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"GiVhNoLZb1\" 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"}
{"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":"Applicants – August 19, 2016","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"EQFXLF0hVp\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-august-19-2016\/\">Applicants – August 19, 2016<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-august-19-2016\/embed\/#?secret=EQFXLF0hVp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – August 19, 2016” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"EQFXLF0hVp\" 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"}
{"id":270,"date":"2018-03-16T16:31:13","date_gmt":"2018-03-16T20:31:13","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=270"},"modified":"2019-05-07T13:53:18","modified_gmt":"2019-05-07T17:53:18","slug":"commissioner-maffei-visits-the-port-of-philadelphia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/commissioner-maffei-visits-the-port-of-philadelphia\/","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Maffei visits the Port of Philadelphia"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>March 16, 2018<\/div>\n<p>On March 16, 2018 Commissioner Maffei traveled to Philadelphia, where he visited the Port and met with Port executives.<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_3931\" style=\"width: 760px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-3931\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"wp-image-3931 size-full\" src=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/6PhillyMaffei2018.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"750\" height=\"1000\" srcset=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/6PhillyMaffei2018.jpg 750w, \/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/6PhillyMaffei2018-225x300.jpg 225w, \/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/6PhillyMaffei2018-150x200.jpg 150w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 750px) 100vw, 750px\" \/><p id=\"caption-attachment-3931\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">(L-R) Jeffrey Theobald, Executive Director and CEO of PhilaPort, Commissioner Maffei, and Todd Brown, Holt Logistics, tour the Port of Philadelphia.<\/p><\/div>\n<p> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>March 16, 2018 On March 16, 2018 Commissioner Maffei traveled to Philadelphia, where he visited the Port and met with Port executives.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[10],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=270"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3932,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270\/revisions\/3932"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roland Eugene FULLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6248.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 6, 2010.

Joseph Bradley Bennett, Salvini & Bennett, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roland Eugene Fuller 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 appeal-ability -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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fuller has not made *714the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 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.

*DISMISSED.*
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7683

SPENCER UTSEY, a/k/a Spencer Clay Utsey , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN OF KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee , and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 8:19

- cv - 03218

- JMC )

Submitted : March 15, 2021 Decided: April 23, 2021

Before MOTZ and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Spencer Utsey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Spencer Utsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Utsey that failure to file timely , specific objections to thi s recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recomm endation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). Although Utsey received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived
review of the claims pursued on appeal because his objections did not address the same
claims

. See Martin , 858 F.3d at 245 (holding t hat, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (interna l quotation marks omitted)). 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 64963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30959]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: On December 4, 2001, a 60-day notice inviting comment from the 
public was published for ``An Assessment of the Rehabilitation Services 
Administration (RSA) Pre-Service Training Program'' in the Federal 
Register (Volume 66, Number 233) dated December 4, 2001. The title of 
this collection has been changed to ``An Evaluation of the 
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Training Program 
Responsiveness to State VR Agency Needs for Qualified Personnel''. The 
study title, as currently drafted, does not indicate the conduct of an 
evaluation nor does it reflect the full scope of the surveys and data 
collection. The first sentence of the abstract has also been changed to 
read, ``This study evaluates the impact of RSA's Training Program on 
the supply of qualified rehabilitation counselors needed by State 
agencies and will identify possible policy options.'' The second and 
last sentence of the abstract remains the same. The Leader, Regulatory 
Information Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer, hereby 
issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.

    Dated: December 11, 2001.
John Tressler,
Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-30959 Filed 12-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P