alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Willie Frank KING, Petitioner-Appellant v. Warden Rebecca TAMEZ, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-10120

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 23, 2010.

Dallas Craig Hughes, Houston, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.

*903Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willie Frank King, federal prisoner #29510-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 21 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his convictions for several drug-related crimes and resulting 328-month sentence. In his petition, King alleged that he was denied his counsel of choice, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights as articulated in *United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez,*548 U.S. 140, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006). King argues that the district court erred in determining that he had not met the requirements for proceeding under § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

To challenge the validity of his conviction and sentence through a § 2241 petition, King must affirmatively show that the remedy under § 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e); *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir.2001). This requires him to make a showing of both actual innocence and retroactivity. *Reyes-Requena,*243 F.3d at 903-04. Specifically, he must establish that his claim (1) “is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and (2) “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in [his] trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” *Id.*at 904.

King devotes his brief to the argument that *Gonzalez-Lopez*should apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. He makes no argument that he is actually innocent. Moreover, *Gonzalez-Lopez*does not establish that his convictions are for nonexistent offenses. *See*548 U.S. at 151-52, 126 S.Ct. 2557. Therefore, we do not reach the question whether *Gonzalez-Lopez*is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review because King cannot meet his burden regardless. *See Reyes-Requena,*243 F.3d at 904. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. *See*§ 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); *Reyes-Requena,*243 F.3d at 897-98. King is CAUTIONED that future attempts to circumvent the successive-motion requirements of § 2255 will invite the imposition of sanctions.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>   0000827086
<NAME>  CARLYLE INCOME PLUS, L.P. - II



<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1999

<CASH>                                    1,933,646
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 7,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,941,244
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            2,485,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        11,541
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                2,474,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              2,485,622
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            163,519
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            151,325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              12,194
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         510,234
<DISCONTINUED>                               (7,141)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (122,456)
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                380,637
<EPS-BASIC>                                  5.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  5.62





</TABLE>
I

★

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1836

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for an increase in

the number of mental health professionals serving in health professional

shortage areas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 22, 1993

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for

an increase in the number of mental health professionals

serving in health professional shortage areas.

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 ‘‘Rural Mental Health

5 Services Amendments of 1993’’.
2

•HR 1836 IH1S

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROVISION FOR INCREASE IN

2 NUMBER OF MENTAL HEALTH PROFES3 SIONALS IN SHORTAGE AREAS.

4 Section 338H(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42

5 U.S.C. 254q(b)) is amended by adding at the end the

6 following paragraph:

7 ‘‘(3) MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.—In

8 providing contracts under this subpart for scholar9 ships and loan repayments, the Secretary shall en10 sure that an appropriate number of mental health

11 professionals is assigned under section 333 for

12 health professional shortage areas.’’.

13 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

14 With respect to contracts for scholarships and loan

15 repayments under subpart III of part D of title III of the

16 Public Health Service Act, the amendment made by sec17 tion 2 applies with respect to contracts entered into on

18 or after October 1, 1993.

Æ
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : 

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) : 

 : 

v. : Docket No. WEVA 2019-0458

 :

KC TRANSPORT, INC : 

 

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW

The petition for discretionary review filed by KC Transport, Inc. is granted. 

____________________________________

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chairman

____________________________________

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner 

____________________________________

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

____________________________________

William I. Althen, Commissioner 

____________________________________

Arthur R. Traynor, III, Commissioner 

April 6, 2020
2

Distribution:

James P. McHugh

Hardy Pence, PLLC

10 Hale Street, 4th Floor

PO Box 2548

Charleston, WV 25329-2548

Robert S. Wilson

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Emily Toler Scott, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

April Nelson, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

US Department of Labor

201 12th St. South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Melanie Garris

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA

U.S. Department of Labor 

201 12th Street South, Suite 401 

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Administrative Law Judge John Lewis

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Office of Administrative Law Judges

7 Parkway Center

875 Greentree Road, Suite 290

Pittsburgh, PA 15220
January 22, 2019
Distribution:

LaTasha T. Thomas, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, 618 Church Street

Suite 230, Nashville, TN 37219-2456

Jason W. Hardin, Esq., Fabian VanCott, 215 South State Street, Suite 1200, Salt Lake City, UT 

84111-2323

Administrative Law Judge L. Zane Gill, Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710

Ali A. Beydoun, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, US Department of Labor, 201 12th St. South-Suite 

401, Arlington, VA 22202-5450 

beydoun.ali@dol.gov

Melanie Garris, Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA, U.S. Department of Labor , 201 

12th Street South, Suite 401, Arlington, VA 22202-5450
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL02-42-000]

Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, 
LP, Mirant California, LLC, and Williams Energy Marketing & Trade, 
Complainants, v. California Independent System Operator Corporation, 
Respondent; Notice of Complaint

December 19, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 18, 2001, Dynegy Power Marketing, 
Inc., Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP, Mirant California, LLC, and 
Williams Energy Marketing & Trading Company (Complainants) submitted a 
complaint against the California Independent System Operator 
Corporation (CAISO) alleging that the CAISO is acting unlawfully by 
implementing changes to its operating procedures related to Intra-Zonal 
Congestion Management and implementing market rule modifications for 
importers without first seeking authorization under section 205 of the 
Federal Power Act. Complainants further allege that certain operating 
procedures violate the terms of the Commission-approved reliability 
must-run contracts.
    Accordingly, Complainants request that the Commission issue an 
immediate order directing the CAISO to operate under its prior 
operating procedures until such time as the CAISO has received all 
Commission authorizations to make these changes. Complainants also 
request that Commission Staff hold a technical conference to develop a 
60-minute market.
    Copies of this filing were served upon the CAISO and other 
interested parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice 
and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before January 7, 2002. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before 
January 7, 2002. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed 
on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' link, select 
``Docket#'' and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31991 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                       335
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,239
<PP&E>                                         152,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,831
<BONDS>                                         65,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,339
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,333
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   131
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,384
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,384
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,384
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
        

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2964

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United v. * States District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Eric Delon Fonville, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

__________ Submitted: May 11, 2009 Filed: May 18, 2009

___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. On May 1, 2008, Eric Delon Fonville (F onville) filed a motion with the district court 1 requesting a sentence re duction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c )(2). Fonville argued his sentence was based upon the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines), and therefore, his sentence s hould be reduced pursuant to the Guidelines’ amendments which retroactivel y reduced the offense level applicable to cocaine base (crack) offenses. See Amendment 706 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c); Amendment 715 to U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10, 2D1.1. The districtcourt denied Fonville’s motion because-2- Fonville was sentenced according to the terms of a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (formerly Fed. R. Cr im. P. 11(e)(1)(C)) plea agreement, which was agreed to by the parties and accepted by the sentencing court.
On appeal, Fonville argues his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement does not preclude a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c)(2). In United States v. Scurlark , 560 F.3d 839, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2009), our court held that when a sentence is based upon a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, courts are bound by the terms of the agreement and have no authority under § 3582(c)(2) to alter those terms because of the subsequently amended Guid elines for the retroactive crack cocaine sentencing reduction. We follow our preceden t, as we must, and affirm the district court’s opinion and judgment denying Fonville’s motion for a reduced sentence.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THERMA-WAVE, INC.'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                          74,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                       602
<INVENTORY>                                     29,147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,829
<PP&E>                                           5,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                     661
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,156
<BONDS>                                             16
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           237
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,009
<SALES>                                         41,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,586
<CGS>                                           20,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  60
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,625
<INCOME-TAX>                                       949
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,676
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,676
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31


</TABLE>
No. 99-10698

-1-

 

* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-10698

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY GEORGE ALLEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:92-CR-365-1-D

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

April 13, 2000

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony George Allen, federal prisoner #40428-053, appeals

from the district court’s denial of his motion for reduction of

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that he

was entitled to a reduction in his sentence based upon the

retroactive application of Amendment 505 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). 

Amendment 505, which does apply retroactively, amended § 2D1.1 to

establish level 38 as the highest category of the drug quantity 

table. Even if Amendment 505 was retroactively applied to

Allen’s case, however, his new offense level would still result
No. 99-10698

-2-

in a term of life imprisonment. Allen’s claim that he was

entitled to an additional three-level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility was explicitly rejected by this court on his

direct appeal and, further, there is nothing in the record to

support his contention that the Government would have agreed with

his request for such a reduction. The district court did not

abuse its discretion by denying Allen’s motion for reduction of

sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981,

984 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31993]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 184-065 California]


El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Public Meeting

December 20, 2001.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is reviewing 
the application for a new license for the El Dorado Project (FERC No. 
184), which was filed on February 22, 2000. The El Dorado Project, 
licensed to the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID), is located on the 
South Fork American River, in El Dorado, Alpine, and Amador Counties, 
California. The project occupies lands of the Eldorado National Forest.
    The EID, several state and federal agencies, and several non-
governmental agencies have asked the Commission for time to work 
collaboratively with a facilitator to resolve certain issues relevant 
to this proceeding. This meeting is part of that collaborative process. 
There will be a 3-hour plenary meeting to discuss matters of general 
interest, followed by a joint meeting of the aquatics/hydrology 
workgroup and the recreation/socioeconomics/visual resources workgroup. 
The workgroup meeting will focus on further defining interests and the 
development of strategies to meet objectives. We invite the 
participation of all interested governmental agencies, non-governmental 
organizations, and the general public in this meeting.
    The meeting will be held on Monday, January 14 and Tuesday, January 
15, 2002, from 9am until 4pm in the Sacramento Marriott, located at 
11211 Point East Drive, Rancho Cordova, California.
    For further information, please contact Elizabeth Molloy at (202) 
208-0771 or John Mudre at (202) 219-1208.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31993 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Declaration of Disaster #3317; Amendment #3] 

In accordance with a notice received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated January 19, 2001, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended to include Lamar County as a disaster area due to damages caused by a severe winter ice storm beginning on December 12, 2000 and continuing through January 15, 2001. 

Any counties contiguous to the above named primary county and not listed herein have been previously declared. 

All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for filing applications for physical damage is March 9, 2001 and for economic injury the deadline is October 9, 2001. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) 

Dated: January 30, 2001. 

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 01-3401 Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P