alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7128

LARRY RAY WARD, a/k/a Red, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00286-D-1; 5:13-cv-00828-

D) 

Submitted: April 28, 2017 Decided: May 16, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Larry Ray Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Larry Ray Ward, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Ward has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an 

inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See United 

States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). The district court lacked jurisdiction 

over Ward’s petition, Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010), and we therefore 

modify its order, Ward v. United States, No. 5:11-cr-00286-D-1 (E.D.N.C. June 25, 2015), 

to reflect a dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the dismissal as 

modified, 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). 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. 

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Opinion filed April 3, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-13-00247-CV

___________

TIMOTHY GARRETT LANE AND 

CHOAT ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellants

V.

SILVERIO MARTINEZ, II AND DIANA MARTINEZ, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 

OF SILVERIO MARTINEZ, III, DECEASED, Appellees

______________

NORMA JIMENEZ, Appellant

V.

TIMOTHY GARRETT LANE AND 

CHOAT ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-133,142
2

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Norma Jimenez has filed in this court a motion to dismiss her

appeal. In the motion, Jimenez states that she “no longer wishes to pursue her 

appeal,” and she requests that this court “dismiss the case as to her only.”

Therefore, in accordance with Jimenez’s request, we dismiss the portion of this

appeal filed by Jimenez. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

The motion to dismiss is granted, and this appeal is dismissed in part. The 

appeal filed by Appellants Timothy Garrett Lane and Choat Enterprises, Inc. 

remains active. 

PER CURIAM

April 3, 2014

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
#### Cathleen E. GOLDEN, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-7189.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 20, 2007.

John F. Cameron, of Montgomery, Alabama, argued for claimant-appellant.

Michael S. Dufault, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and Donald E. Kinner, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were David R. McLenachen, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Y. Ken Lee, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Cathleen E. Golden appeals the final judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which dismissed her appeal from the Board of Vet*999erans’ Appeals for lack of jurisdiction based on the failure to timely file a notice of appeal. *Golden v. Nicholson,*No. 04-1385, 2005 WL 668715 (Vet.App. Mar. 16, 2005). In so doing, the court rejected her equitable tolling argument. We *vacate*the court’s judgment and *remand*the case for reconsideration in light of *Barrett v. Nicholson,*466 F.3d 1038 (Fed.Cir.2006).
Exhibit 23.1

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’CONSENT 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-04298, 333-28129, 333-82455, 333-88211 and 333-87774) and in Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-09873 and 333- 82357) of our report dated April 11, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of KFx, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Denver, Colorado 

April 11, 2003
- 931 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

303 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McGINN

Cite as 303 Neb. 931

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Danny J. McGinn, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed August 23, 2019. No. S-18-744.

supplemental opinion

Appeal from the District Court for Holt County, Mark D. 

Kozisek, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for 

Holt County, Kale B. Burdick, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.

Forrest F. Peetz, of Peetz Law, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss, 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller‐Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the 

appellee, State of Nebraska, concerning our opinion in State v. 

McGinn.

1

 We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion 

as follows:

In the analysis section, we withdraw the last paragraph2 and 

substitute the following:

1 State v. McGinn, ante p. 224, 928 N.W.2d 391 (2019).

2 Id. at 234, 928 N.W.2d at 398.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

09/20/2019 08:06 AM CDT
- 932 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

303 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McGINN

Cite as 303 Neb. 931

In this matter, because we consider all evidence admitted by the trial court, erroneously or not, we consider the 

breath test in our double jeopardy analysis. Considering 

the breath test, the evidence was sufficient to sustain 

a guilty verdict for a violation of § 60-6,196(1)(c) as 

charged. As such, double jeopardy does not forbid a 

remand for a new trial. Therefore, in consideration of 

all of the above, we reverse the district court’s decision 

affirming the county court’s conviction and remand the 

cause to the district court with directions to remand the 

matter to the county court for a new trial.

In the sole paragraph of the conclusion section, we withdraw 

the last sentence3 and substitute the following: “Accordingly, 

we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the county 

court’s conviction, but determine double jeopardy does not 

require dismissal of this action.”

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

 Former opinion modified. 

 Motion for rehearing overruled.

3 Id.
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2 3 -2 119 LT Case No s . 2 023 -C C -0 05209

2023 -CC-0 05760

_____________________________ L EE G RANT , Appella nt,
v. C ITY OF J ACKSONVILLE , F LORIDA , Appellee
.

_____________________________ On appeal from the County Court for Duval County. Scott F. Mitchell, Judge. Lee Gra nt, Jacksonville, pro se. Wendy L. Mummaw, Jac ksonville, for Appellee. D ecember 26, 2023
P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a). L AMBERT , E ISNAUGLE , and H ARRIS , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not fin al until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
#### HIGHMARK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLCARE HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2011-1219.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 30, 2014.

Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Washington, DC, Erik R. Puknys, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Palo Alto, CA, Dan S. Boyd, The *945Boyd Law Firm, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cynthia E. Kerniek, James C. Martin, Kevin S. Katona, Thomas Michael Pohl, Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The court *sua sponte*enters the following order in *Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc.*(No. 11-1219).

It Is ORDERED That:

The parties are hereby directed to file briefs, not to exceed fifteen pages each, addressing the impact of the Supreme Court’s decisions in *Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.,*— U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1744, 188 L.Ed.2d 829 (2014) and *Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.,*— U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 188 L.Ed.2d 816 (2014) on this case and how the court should proceed following the remand of the case from the Supreme Court. The briefs shall be filed no later than July 28, 2014.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

This certification is intended to accompany the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for GSI Commerce, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 28, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"). I, Michael G. Rubin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

                                       By: /s/ Michael G. Rubin
                                           --------------------
                                       Michael G. Rubin
                                       Chief Executive Officer

November 11, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           13456
<SECURITIES>                                      7614
<RECEIVABLES>                                    28708
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1196)
<INVENTORY>                                      27824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 85655
<PP&E>                                           78170
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (21056)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  146232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29139
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           254
<OTHER-SE>                                      111739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    146232
<SALES>                                          92247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 92247
<CGS>                                            69677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    69677
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 23704
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (462)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (713)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (713)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
|                                                                                           | KPMG Auditores Consultores Ltda.

Av. Isidora Goyenechea 3520, Piso 2

Las Condes, Santiago, Chile |   | Exhibit 23.2

  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------|
| Teléfono  +56 (2) 2798 1000

Fax  +56 (2) 2798 1001

www.kpmg.cl |

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of

Enel Generación Chile S.A. (Enel Generación Chile) Formerly Named Empresa Nacional de Electricidad S.A. (Endesa−Chile):

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-214079)on Form F-3 of Enel Américas S.A. ofour report dated April 29, 2016, with respect to the consolidated statement of financial position of Enel Generación Chile and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015, and the related consolidated statements of comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, which report appears in the 2016 annual report on Form 20-F of Enel Américas S.A..

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ KPMG

KPMG Auditores Consultores Ltda.

Santiago, Chile

April 27, 2017

 

 

 

 KPMG Auditores Consultores Ltda, a Chilean limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1


February 11, 1997

The Board of Directors

Iwerks Entertainment, Inc.



We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-77816) pertaining to the Employees' incentive stock options and
other stock option and warrant agreements of Iwerks Entertainment, Inc. of our
report dated January 24, 1997 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated
interim financial statements of Iwerks Entertainment, Inc. that are included in
its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 1996.


                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTON 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Southeast Acquisitions II, L P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the period ending March 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissions on the date hereof I,
Richard W. Sorenson, the principal executive officer of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

      (1)   The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
            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 result of operation
            of the Partnership.

/s/ Richard W. Sorenson
----------------------------
Richard W. Sorenson

Richard W. Sorenson
Principal Executive Officer & Member
Southern Management Group, LLC
May 13, 2005

<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTON 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Southeast Acquisitions II, L P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the period ending March 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissions on the date hereof I,
Laura E. Ristvedt, the principal financial officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

      (1)   The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
            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 result of operation
            of the Partnership.

/s/ Laura E. Ristvedt
-----------------------------
Laura E. Ristvedt

Laura E. Ristvedt
Principal Financial Officer
Southern Management Group, LLC
May 13, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 233 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 233

  To apply certain provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to a 
        segment of the North Fork of the Payette River in Idaho.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. LaRocco introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To apply certain provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to a 
        segment of the North Fork of the Payette River in Idaho.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF THE NORTH FORK PAYETTE RIVER.

    In order to protect for present and future generations the 
outstanding scenic, natural, and recreational values of the North Fork 
of the Payette River between Cabarton Bridge and Banks in the State of 
Idaho, the protections afforded by section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1278(a)) for rivers designated under section 3(a) 
of that Act shall apply to the 25-mile segment of such river downstream 
of Cabarton Bridge and upstream of the confluence of the river with the 
South Fork of the Payette at Banks.

                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis CASARES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50641

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 8, 2014.

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

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Luis Casares challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed *268for possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. He was sentenced within the guidelines range to 96 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Because Casares failed to object at sentencing, our review is limited to plain error. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 134-35, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); *United States v. Peltier,*505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.2007).

Casares contends that his sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the drug trafficking Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, is not based on empirical data. Further, he contends that the sentence failed to account for his personal history and characteristics, including his difficult childhood, limited education, virtual illiteracy, and serious drug and alcohol abuse. Moreover, he contends that the sentence is greater than necessary to meet the statutory goals of protecting the public and deterring future crime because he is 43 years old and recidivism rates for older defendants is markedly lower. Casares also argues that the sentence is eight times longer than any sentence he has previously served and that he is sincerely remorseful and resolved to change his life.

The district court was not required to question the empirical grounding behind § 2D1.1. *See United States v. Duarte,*569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir.2009). Casares’s history and characteristics were before the district court, yet the district court imposed a sentence within the guidelines range. We have recognized that “the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” *United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.2008). Casares has not demonstrated that the district court failed to give the proper weight to any particular § 3553(a) factor or that his sentence “represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” *United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009). Therefore, he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that is accorded to his within-guidelines sentence. *See id.*

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *268published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.