alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          625241
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9179
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                634420
<PP&E>                                         1106889
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1068825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  672484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4710
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      667774
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    672484
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                846594
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   155371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 691223
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    691223
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________
No. 16

- 11926 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:10

- cr

- 00025

- JES

- SPC

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus
HECTOR L. ROMAN BAEZ, JR., a.k.a. Tito,

Defen dant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ ( November 30, 2016 )

Before WILLIAM PRYOR
, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11926 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 Page: 1 of 22 Hector Baez Jr. appeals pro se the denial of his motion to correct errors in
his presentence investigation report. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. The district court

ruled that the elimination of criminal history points from a presentence report is
“not a ‘clerical error’ within the meaning of Rule 36.” We affirm.
The district court did not err by denying Baez’s motion. A district court may
use Rule 36 to correct a clerical error in a judgment, Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, but the
correction “may not be use d to make a substantive alteration to a criminal

sentence,” United States v. Portillo , 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004). Baez
moved to deduct points that had been assessed for four prior convictions on the
grounds they “did not qualify under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(e)(1)” and “cause[d] [him]
to have an upgrade security classification within the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”
Because a reduction in criminal history points would alter Baez’s sentencing range,
his motion does not request the type of “minor and mecha nical” change allowed

under Rule 36. See id. at 1165. Baez cannot raise a substantive challenge to the

calculation of his sentence in a motion to correct a clerical error.

We AFFIRM the denial of Baez’s motion to correct a clerical error. Case: 16-11926 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 Page: 2 of 2
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 25, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00131-CV 

JOHNNY RICH, Appellant 

V. 

GLENBROOK PLACE APARTMENTS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-00208-E 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated June 13, 2013, we informed 

appellant that the County Clerk had notified the Court that the clerk’s record had not been filed 

because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We 

directed appellant to file written verification that he had paid for or made arrangements to pay for 

the clerk’s record or that he had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We 

cautioned appellant that if he did not file the required documentation within ten days, we might 

dismiss the appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not provided the required 

documentation or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the clerk’s 

record. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). 

 

 

130131F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JOHNNY RICH, Appellant 

No. 05-13-00131-CV V. 

GLENBROOK PLACE APARTMENTS, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-00208-E. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee GLENBROOK PLACE APARTMENTS recover its costs 

of this appeal from appellant JOHNNY RICH. 

Judgment entered July 25, 2013 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Shondel Lamar LARKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. THOMAS, Sr., Correctional Lieutenant, sued in official capacity and individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-56213.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.*

Filed Jan. 27, 2016.

Shondel Lamar Larkin, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Shondel Lamar Larkin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Larkin’s action because Larkin failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant’s actions did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); *Pratt v. Rowland,*65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir.1995) (“The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains.... [Courts] should afford appropriate deference and flexibility to prison officials in the evaluation of proffered legitimate penological reasons for the conduct alleged to be retaliatory.” (citations and quotations marks omitted)); *see also Nat'l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology,*228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2000) (in determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Larkin leave to amend *490after providing Larkin with an opportunity to amend and concluding that further amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.2011) (setting forth standard of review and noting that district court may dismiss without leave to amend when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider Larkin’s argument that his due process rights were violated because the operative complaint did not allege a due process claim.

We reject as unsupported by the record Larkin’s argument that the district court erroneously denied him discovery.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir, R, 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agricuture

###### Natural Resources Conservation Service 

# AGENCY:

Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Section 14 (f) of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Pub. L. 83-566), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1012); The Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that a system to rank and approve requests for rehabilitation of watershed dams has been prepared for use in implementation of a rehabilitation program. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry W. Caldwell, National Policy Coordinator for Aging Watershed Infrastructure, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 100 USDA Suite 206, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074-2655. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Law 83-566 was amended by Section 313 of Public Law 106-472. One provision of this amendment directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a system of ranking and approving requests for rehabilitation of watershed dams. A description of the system that will be implemented in FY 2002 to establish a priority ranking of all applications for assistance received in a state has been developed. Copies of the description of this ranking and approval system are available upon request at the above address. 

Roger L. Bensey, 

Director, Watersheds and Wetlands Division. 

[FR Doc. 01-31745 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              58
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                       609
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,721
<PP&E>                                           9,142
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,318
<BONDS>                                          4,108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,687
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,886
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    92
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,551
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (286)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,837
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,837
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 21



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Acclaim Cable Holdings, Inc.                                Delaware
Acclaim Coin-Operated Entertainment, Inc.                   Delaware
Acclaim Comics, Inc.                                        Delaware
Acclaim Distribution, Inc.                                  Delaware
Acclaim Corporate Center I, Inc.                            New York
LJN Toys, Ltd.                                              New York
Oyster Bay Warehouse Corp.                                  New York
Acclaim Redemption Games, Inc.                              California
Iguana Entertainment, Inc.                                  Texas
Acclaim Studios - Salt Lake City, Inc.                      Utah
Acclaim Japan, Ltd.                                         Japan
Acclaim Entertainment Canada, Ltd.                          Canada
Acclaim Entertainment Espana SA                             Spain
Acclaim Entertainment G.m.b.H.                              Germany
Acclaim Entertainment, SA                                   France
Acclaim Entertainment, Ltd.                                 United Kingdom
Iguana Entertainment Ltd.                                   United Kingdom
Probe Entertainment Limited                                 United Kingdom
Acclaim Redemption Games Limited                            U.S. Virgin Islands
Acclaim Character Animation, L.P.                           Delaware
ACA Holdings, Inc.                                          Delaware
Acclaim Europe Ltd.                                         United Kingdom
Annodeus Inc.                                               Delaware
TNM Holdings, Inc.                                          Delaware
Annodeus G.m.b.H.                                           Germany
Annodeus S.A.                                               France
Annodeus Limited                                            United Kingdom
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Twentymile Coal Company, Docket No. WEST 2007-892-E.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Twentymile Coal Company, Docket No. WEST 2007-892-E.

meeting_061208.pdf

fmshrc061108.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

April 5, 2012 

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 17, 2012 

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New 

Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: 

The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Long 

Branch Energy v. Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos. WEVA 

2009-1492-R, et al. (Issues include whether the judge erred 

in denying motions to dismiss late-filed petitions for 

assessment of civil penalties.) 

Any person attending this oral argument who requires 

special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as 

sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in 

advance of those needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 

2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d). 

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD 

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. XIAO CHEN LIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-60208

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 30, 2010.

*915Xiao Chen Lin, White Deer, PA, pro se.

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Xiao Chen Lin, now federal prisoner # 08242-043, has appealed the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). Lin contended in his § 3582 motion that his sentence was based upon “inaccurate and fraudulent information,” that his guidelines sentence was determined incorrectly, and that errors were committed during the guilty plea proceeding. The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to modify Lin’s sentence.

“The district court’s jurisdiction to correct or modify a defendant’s sentence is limited to those specific circumstances enumerated by Congress in [] § 3582.” *United States v. Garcia,*606 F.3d 209, 212 n. 5 (5th Cir.2010); *see also*§ 3582(b) & (c). None of those circumstances appertain to this case. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 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.
FEDERAL. l\1INE SAFETY AND ]-[EA.]:;rH REVTE\V CO·i\Tl\'IISSI(j":\l 

The Honorable Russell D_ Feingold 

United States Senate 

506 Hart Senate Onice Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senalor Feingold: 

March 31,2009 

Pursuant to Public Law 110-28, the U_S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina 

Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations ACI, 2007, and the Buy American Act (BAA) 

(41 U.S.c. IDa) contained therein, I am pleased 10 submit the Fiscal Year 2008 Buy American 

Act Report for Ihe Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC). 

The report indicates that, to the best of our knowledge, FMSHRC procured no supplies 

from entities that manufacture articles, materials, or supplies outside the United States during 

fiscal year 2008. This report will be posted on FMSI-IRC's website at WWw.fillshrc.Qov. 

If you have any questions, please contact me or have your staff contact Lisa Boyd, 

Executive Director, who may be reached at (202) 434-9905. 

Enclosure 

Michael F. Duffy 

Chainllan 

(iH! XE\\, .JI':I{SEY 

T I': 1 .1': I'll 0 ... I':: :!o :!-4 :.14 -!J!lOO 
N/A 

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

Buy American Act Report 

Acquisition of Articles, Materials, and Supplies 

Manufactured Outside and Inside the United States 

Fiscal Year 2008 

A. Dollar value of any articles, materials, or supplies purchased that were 

manufactured outside of the United States. 

B. Itemized list of all waivers granted with respect to such articles, materials, or 

supplies under the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.). 

C. Exception use to purchase articles, materials, or supplies manufactured 

outside the United States: 

D. Summary: 

• Total procurement funds expended on articles, materials, and supplies 

manufactured inside the United States: $ 134,817.00 

• Total procurement funds expended on articles, materials, and supplies 

manufactured outside the United States: SQ.