alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST ‘ S HAWAI **‘** I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP

- 2 2

- 0000 308

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, FOR THE LXS 2005

- 9N TRUST FUND , Plaintiff

- Appell ee , v. MYRNA TOLBE TUMBAGA and ROGER BOLUSAN TUMBAGA, Defendants

- Appellants and IRENEA BOLUSAN TUMBAGA; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE CWHEQ INC., CWHEQ REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006

- C;
MIDLAN D FUNDING LLC, Defendants

- Appellees and JOHN DOES 1

- 20; JANE DOES 1

- 20; DOE CORPORATIONS 1

- 20; DOE ENTITIES 1 20; AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1

- 20 , Defendant s

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT ( CIVIL NO. 1CC161000015 )

ORDER (By: Hiraoka , Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen , JJ.)

Upon consideration of the " Stipulation for Dismissal
with Prejudice of Notice of Appeal Filed April 29, 2022," by Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-22-0000308 18-JUL-2024 09:26 AM Dkt. 51 OAWSTNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI ‘ I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2 Defendants

- Appellants Myrna Tolbe Tumbaga and Roger Bolusan
Tumbaga , the papers in support, and the record, it appears that
(1) the appeal has docketed; (2) the parties stipulated to
dismiss the appeal with prejudice, under Hawai ‘ i Rules of

Appellate Procedure ( **HRAP** ) Rule 42(b), and have addressed
attorneys' fees and costs; and (3) the stipulation is dated and
signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the appeal

. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation
is approved and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The
parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs on
appeal.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ‘ i, July 18 , 202 4

. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Gene BAILEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-30088.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*481Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 21, 2008.

Kent Y. Liu, Esq., USTA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, Helen J. Brunner, Esq., USSE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Russell Leonard, Esq., FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Larry Gene Bailey, Jr., appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bailey’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, and we construed a subsequent letter from appellant as a supplemental brief. Appellant then filed a second letter stating that he did not intend the first letter to constitute a brief, and requesting appointment of counsel. Appellant was given the opportunity to file a replacement pro se supplemental brief, but no replacement brief has been filed. No answering brief has been filed.

Our review of the briefs and record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, appellant’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and appellant’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Because the district court’s judgment incorrectly identifies 18 U.S.C. § 2113® as the statute of conviction, rather than 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), as charged in the sole count of the indictment, we REMAND for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment. *See United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000).

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31900]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Revised 
Information Collection: RI 25-37

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget a request for review of an information 
collection. Form RI 25-37, Evidence to Prove Dependency of a Child, is 
designed to collect sufficient information for OPM to determine whether 
the surviving child of a deceased Federal employee is eligible to 
receive benefits as a dependent child.
    Approximately 250 forms are completed annually. We estimate it 
takes approximately 60 minutes to assemble the needed documentation. 
The annual burden is 250 hours.
    Comments are particularly invited on: whether this information is 
necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, and whether 
it will have practical utililty; whether our estimate of the public 
burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on 
valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize 
the burden of the collection of information on those who are to 
respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d606f7962626068744d627d60236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7dad5c3d8d8dad2cef7d8c7da99d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Please include a mailing address with you request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Ronald W. Melton, Chief, 
Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349A, 
Washington, DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: Donna 
G. Lease, Team Leader, Forms Analysis and Design, Budget & 
Administrative Services Division, (202) 606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Kay Coles James,
Director.
[FR Doc. 01-31900 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Celio Ramos GUIZAR, Appellant.

No. 10-2336.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 21, 2010.

Filed: Dec. 28, 2010.

Clifford R. Cronk, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Appellee.

Celio Ramos Guizar, Dubuque, IA, pro se.

Donovan S. Robertson, Rock Island, IL, for Appellant.

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Celio Guizar challenges the 120-month statutory minimum prison term that the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to possessing with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); and unlawful entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he argues that the sentence was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to promote the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We reject counsel’s argument, because the district court did not have discretion to sentence Guizar below the statutory minimum of 120 months in prison, *see*21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B); *United States v. Chacon,*330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.2003); *see also United States v. Gregg,*451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir.2006). It appears from a pro se filing by Guizar that he wishes to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, but the proper vehicle for such claims is in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See United States v. Cain,*134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998). He also appears to complain that he did not have an opportunity to review the presentence report with counsel prior to sentencing, but he did not seek more time to do so at the sentencing hearing, and he has not described how he suffered resulting prejudice. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a) (error that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded); *United States v. Prado,*204 F.3d 843, 845 (8th Cir.2000).

*99Finally, having reviewed the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues, and we therefore allow counsel to withdraw subject to counsel informing Guizar about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"With FMCS Assistance, Joffrey Ballet and Dancers Reach Five-Year Agreement - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"eCez4tqUp6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-assistance-joffrey-ballet-dancers-reach-five-year-agreement\/\">With FMCS Assistance, Joffrey Ballet and Dancers Reach Five-Year Agreement<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-assistance-joffrey-ballet-dancers-reach-five-year-agreement\/embed\/#?secret=eCez4tqUp6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“With FMCS Assistance, Joffrey Ballet and Dancers Reach Five-Year Agreement” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"eCez4tqUp6\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"With assistance from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the New York City-based Joffrey Ballet has reached a new five-year contract for its company of 41 dancers, represented by the American Guild of Musical Artists (AGMA). According to a recent announcement of the contract by the Ballet, the agreement is effective immediately and extends through […]"}
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10108 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DANIEL GUERRERO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:18

- CR

- 21

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel Guerrero appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and
his within

- guidelines sentence of 18 months of imprisonment. He raises arguments relating to the cons titutionality of § 922(g)(1) and the sufficiency of the factual basis in support of his guilty plea. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance , which Guerrero does not oppose . In the

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 4, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10108 Document: 00515145989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2019No. 19

- 10108

2 alternative, the Government seeks an extension of time t o file its brief. For the following reasons, we dispense with further briefing and AFFIRM. First, Guerrero argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as interpreted by this court and that the factual basis in support of his guilty plea is insufficient b ecause it does not establish a constitutionally sufficient
connection between the firearm he possessed and interstate commerce. As he concedes, these arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013); United State s v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001). Second, Guerrero argues that the factual basis in support of his guilty plea is insufficient because it does not establish that he knew that the firearm
had traveled in interstate commerce. We have concl uded that a § 922(g)(1) conviction does not require proof that a defendant knew that the firearm had
traveled in interstate commerce

. See United States v. Dancy , 861 F.2d 77 , 81 (5th Cir. 1988) . Guerrero does not articulate any argument that this specific holding in Dancy has been unequivocally overruled by Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2196 (2019)

. See Alcantar , 733 F.3d at 145

- 46 (discussing this court’s rule of orderliness). In light of the foregoing, t he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motions for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief, are DENIED. Case: 19-10108 Document: 00515145989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2019
2014-0914.

#### State v. Sultaana.

Cuyahoga App. No. 101211. This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal.

Upon consideration of appellant’s emergency motion for stay of the court of appeals’ judgment, it is ordered by the court that the motion is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2000
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                              260496
<DEPRECIATION>                                      180647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       80096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               362731
<BONDS>                                             994925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              6346
<OTHER-SE>                                        (1401920)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         80096
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     62685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   53095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (115780)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          80,044                  42,439
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,128,145                 972,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,307                  12,279
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,193,882               1,002,166
<PP&E>                                           9,931                   8,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,261                   3,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,333,784               1,096,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          395,395                 358,213
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            71                      71
<OTHER-SE>                                     215,292                 191,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,333,784               1,096,272
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,100                 133,611
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,943                  60,850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,635                  31,411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,477                   6,301
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,045                  35,049
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,603                  15,381
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,442                  19,668
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,442                  19,668
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.65                    1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54                    1.30


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23





                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------






THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on Form
S-8 (No.  33-59570  and No. 33- 68514)  and Form S-3 (No.  33-65059)  of Capital
Associates,   Inc.  of  our  reports  dated  July  14,  1998,  relating  to  the
consolidated  balance sheets of Capital Associates,  Inc. and subsidiaries as of
May 31,  1998 and 1997,  and the  related  consolidated  statements  of  income,
changes  in  stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for each of the years in the
three- year period ended May 31, 1998, and the related  schedule,  which reports
appear in the May 31,  1998  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Capital  Associates,
Inc.





                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

                                           /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                           -------------------------

Denver, Colorado
July 22, 1998
#### Marlon BRAMWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Warden, USP Lee, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-6081.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 29, 2008.

Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marlon Bramwell appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), which the district court construed as a complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000), and its order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Bramwell v.*
      *228
      *O’Brien,*No. 7:07-cv-00429-gec-mfu, 2007 WL 2821493 (W.D.Va. Sept. 25, 2007 & Oct. 30, 2007). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DAVID SHANE HALBROOK , Appel lant , v. Case No

. 5D 23
- 34 LT Cas e No. 19
- CF
- 11247
STAT E OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

.

______________________________ / Decision filed March 7, 20 23 Appeal from the Circuit Court for D uval C ounty , Tatiana Salvador, Judge. David J

. Joffe, of

J offe L aw, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, JA

Y and HARRIS , JJ. , c oncur.