alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 11-50816 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ANGELA MARIE CUELLAR, also known as Angela Cuellar, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-288-1

Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Angela M arie Cuellar was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit identity theft, a violation of 18 U

. S .C. § 1028(f), and f our counts of aggravated identity t heft, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). The d istrict court imposed

a 2 4-month imprisonment term for her con s p iracy conviction and consecutive 24-month imprisonment terms f o r e a c h o f h e r c o n v i c t i ons for a ggravated identity theft, resulting in a total of 10 years of imprisonment. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 24, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 11-50816 Document: 00512218656 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2013No. 11-50816

Cuellar argues that the district court abused its discretion in o rdering the impri s o n ment terms for her aggravated identity theft convictions to run consecutively to each other. The district court had the discretion to determine whether those imprisonment terms would be served concurrently or consecutivel y . S e e § 1028A(b)(4). In light of the e vidence r e garding the extensiveness of Cuellar’s criminal conduct, the district court d id n o t a buse its discretion. See § 1028A(b)(4); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2, comment. (n.2(B)). Ac c o r d i n g to C uellar, the district court also failed t o adequately provide

reasons for its decision t o impose the consecutive sentences. B ecause she did not object on this ground in the district court, plain error review a pplies. See United States v. Mondragon-S a ntiago , 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th C ir. 2009). Cuellar has not shown any clear or obvious error regarding t he adequacy of the dis t rict court’s reasons. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-50816 Document: 00512218656 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2013
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 Agriculture Rural Housing Service
 AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA.
 ACTION: Correction.
 SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service (RHS) corrects a notice published December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81650-81656). This action is taken to correct the point scoring of the selection criteria in paragraph VIII(A), (B), and (E). This action is being taken so that interest credit requests may be scored as they are received, on an individual basis, to determine if the threshold criteria of 70 points have been met. Accordingly, the notice published December 26, 2000, (65 FR 81650-81656), is corrected as follows: On page 81655, in the second column, Item VIII(A), the third sentence, “The proposals will be given a point score starting with the project located in the area with the lowest population receiving 20 points, the next 19 points and so forth, until up to 20 projects have received points.” should read “Population points will be awarded as follows: Population
PointsLess than 10,000
2010,001-14,999
1515,000-16,999
517,000-20,000
0
 On page 81655, in the third column, Item VIII(B), the second sentence, “The proposals will be given a point score starting with the community having the lowest median income receiving 20 points, the next 19 points and so forth until up to 20 proposals have received points.” should read “Median income points will be awarded as follows: Median income (dollars)
PointsLess than 25,000
2025,000-29,999
1530,000-34,999
1035,000-40,000
5More than 40,000
0
 On page 81656, in the first column, Item VIII(E), the second sentence, “The proposals will be ranked in order of this percentage with the proposal with the highest percent receiving 20 points, the next 19 points and so forth until up to 20 projects have received points.” should read “Percentage of 3-5 bedroom points will be awarded as follows: Percentage of 3-5 bedrooms
Points100
20At least 75
15At least 50
10At least 25
5Less than 25
0
 Dated: February 2, 2001. Obediah G. Baker, Jr., Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service.


[FR Doc. 01-3969 Filed 2-15-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFiled 5/8/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

____________________ WILLIAM LUCKY LENHART, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 95-6334 ) (D.C. No. CIV-94-2108-M) LARRY A. FIELDS and R. MICHAEL CODY, ) (W. D. Oklahoma) ) Defendants-Appellees. )

____________________ ORDER & JUDGMENT *

____________________ Before ANDERSON, BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

____________________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.2

Plaintiff pro se William Lucky Lenhart, an inmate in the Lexington [Oklahoma] Correctional Facility, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that officials of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections violated his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff primarily raises an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim, contending that defendants were aware that he suffers from a serious lung ailment (emphysema) and “that smoke of any kind seriously endangers [his] health and life span,” I R. doc. 2 at 4. He asserts defendants have acted with deliberate indifference towards his rights by failing to provide him with a nonsmoking environment. Prison officials have given plaintiff a nonsmoking cellmate and offered placement in the infirmary if needed. They also have adopted regulations making portions of the prison smoke-free. Plaintiff contends, however, the nonsmoking regulations are not being enforced sufficiently, and he asks that smoking be prohibited in the entire prison. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant officials based on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. We have reviewed the briefs and the record and cannot add significantly to the analysis in the magistrate judge’s recommendation of July 20, 1995, which was adopted by the district court. We therefore AFFIRM for substantially the reasons stated therein.3

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court James K. Logan Circuit Judge
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund IV, Ltd.  (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Partnership's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 (the "Report"). The
undersigned hereby certifies that:

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

(2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



Date:    November 7, 2002            /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
     ----------------------          --------------------------------------
                                     Name:  James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                     Title: Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Tucker I. Marr, Chief Financial Officer of Pruco Life InsuranceCompany of New Jersey, hereby certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2007, containing the financial statements of Pruco Life of New JerseyVariable Contract Real Property Account (a separate account of Pruco Life Insurance Company of NewJersey) and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable Contract RealProperty Account and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership.Date: August 10, 2007       /s/ Tucker I Marr Tucker I. Marr
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Scott D. Kaplan, Chief Executive Officer of Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey, hereby certify that the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter endedSeptember 30,2010,containing the financial statements of Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable Contract Real Property Account (a separate account of Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey) and The Prudential Variable
Contract Real Property Partnership (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable Contract Real Property Account and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership.

Date:November 12, 2010



/s/ Scott D. KaplanScott D. KaplanChief Executive OfficerPruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40420 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
EFRAIN AMBROSIO

- LOPEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 1050

- 1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Efrain Ambrosio

Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Unit ed States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ambrosio

- Lopez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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 December 31, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40420 Document: 00512886838 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/31/2014No. 14

- 40420

non frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-40420 Document: 00512886838 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/31/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000911583
<NAME> STEINWAY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            5271
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    54881
<ALLOWANCES>                                      7504
<INVENTORY>                                      87954
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                151622
<PP&E>                                           78160
<DEPRECIATION>                                   19531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  266708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            40429
<BONDS>                                         115457
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                       75752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    266708
<SALES>                                         277848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                277848
<CGS>                                           184567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    49972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   742
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               12776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  26156
<INCOME-TAX>                                     12456
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              13700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     13700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             117
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      548
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,420
<PP&E>                                             628
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,186
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,405
<OTHER-SE>                                    (33,142)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,048
<SALES>                                          3,935
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,935
<CGS>                                            2,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (333)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    114
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                113
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       113
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*CHARLES E. KERR

*Gary A. Mastronardi,*in support of the petition.

*John A. East III,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided April 29, 2010

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 120 Conn. App. 203 (AC 29611), is denied.
Exhibit 10.4(b)
  
  Re:
    
    Management Agreement Renewals
   
    
    Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Orion Futures Fund L.P.
    
    CMF Winton Feeder I LP
    
    CMF Winton Master Fund L.P.
    
    Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Institutional Futures Portfolio LP
    
    Abingdon Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Global Futures Fund Ltd.
    
    Orion Futures Fund (Cayman) Ltd.
    By:
    
    /s/ Jennifer Magro

Jennifer MagroChief Financial Officer & DirectorWINTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENTBy:
    
    /s/ Peter Jau HalPrint Name:  Peter Jau HalJM/sr
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6335

SIDDHANTH SHARMA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR.; STEPHEN JACOBS, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-hc-02065-M)

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Siddhanth Sharma, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6335 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Siddhanth Sharma seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sharma has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6335 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2216 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2216

 To provide that a State may not take into account income from sources 
   outside the State in determining the amount of tax imposed on the 
                        income of nonresidents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 1993

  Mr. Franks of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that a State may not take into account income from sources 
   outside the State in determining the amount of tax imposed on the 
                        income of nonresidents.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) chapter 4 of 
title 4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
the following new section:
``Sec. 114. Limitation on taxation of nonresidents
    ``(a) In determining the amount of income tax imposed by a State 
(or political subdivision thereof) on an individual for any period 
during which such individual is not a resident or domiciliary of such 
State, such State (or political subdivision) shall not take into 
account any income from sources outside such State.
    ``(b) For purposes of subsection (a)--
            ``(1) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, 
        and
            ``(2) the term `income tax' has the meaning given to such 
        term by section 110(c) of this title.''
    (b) The analysis of chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:

                              ``114. Limitation on taxation of 
                                        nonresidents.''
    (c) The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after December 31, 1992.

                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*MICHAEL P. MILLER

*Katharine S. Goodbody,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Mitchell S. Brody,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided May 20, 2010

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 120 Conn. App. 133 (AC 29672), is denied.

VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.