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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 7, 2015*

Decided April 21, 2015

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 14-3079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KIRK ACREY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 07 CR 211

Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.

Order

After the Sentencing Commission reduced the range for crack-cocaine offenses in 

2011, and made that change retroactive (see Amendment 750), Kirk Acrey asked the district court to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). His original sentence of 

150 months already was well below his range of 262 to 327 months, and the district 

judge denied his motion. The judge stated that Acrey’s original sentence depended on

 

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
No. 14-3079 Page 2

the career-offender Guideline and that Amendment 750 did not affect the prescribed 

range. Acrey did not appeal.

About nine months later, Acrey filed a second motion, again relying on Amendment 

750. He contended that his original sentence did not depend on the career-offender 

Guideline and that, contrary to the district judge’s expressed belief, he could benefit 

from Amendment 750. He also contended that the judge should have considered his 

conduct in prison, which includes (he maintains) completing many courses and obtaining a GED. The district judge denied this motion as successive—and rightly so.

We held in United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2011), that §3582(c)(2) authorizes only one sentence-reduction motion per retroactive change to the Guidelines. The 

way to obtain review of a district court’s order denying a motion is to appeal, not to file 

a new motion in the district court. Redd compelled the district court to deny Acrey’s 

successive motion.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of County Bank Corp on form 10-Q for the
period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Curt Carter, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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 Company.


/s/ Curt Carter
-------------------------------------
Curt Carter
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Psychiatric Solutions, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joey A. Jacobs, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, and I, Jack E. Polson, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, each
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  November 15, 2004

                                                     /s/ Joey A. Jacobs
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Joey A. Jacobs
                                                     Chairman, Chief Executive
                                                     Officer and President

                                                     /s/ Jack E. Polson
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Jack E. Polson
                                                     Chief Accounting Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Royal BodyCare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Steven E. Brown, Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Steven E. BrownSteven E. BrownVice President  FinanceandChief Financial OfficerMay 13, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Royal BodyCare, Inc. and will be retained by Royal BodyCare, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60198 Summary Calendar

ALEXEI IVANOV, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals USDC No. A70-690-548

- - - - - - - - - - February 4, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alexei Ivanov petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum and for a withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and determine that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d 194 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The petition for review is DENIED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman A. PARADA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-3216.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 26, 2011.

James A. Brown, Office of the United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Norman A. Parada, Otisville, NY, pro se.

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for recusal, which he *177filed in the underlying criminal case after his conviction became final through the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari. We affirm.

When Appellant filed his recusal motion, his conviction was final and there were no pending motions or proceedings in the district court. As it related to the closed criminal proceeding, his motion was moot because granting the motion to recuse would have provided him with no effective relief. *See Kan. Judicial Review v. Stout,*562 F.3d 1240, 1246 (10th Cir.2009). To the extent he sought the district judge’s recusal in any future habeas or other proceedings, his motion was unripe because no such proceedings were pending. *See Morgan v. McCotter,*365 F.3d 882, 890-91 (10th Cir.2004). And, to the extent he now advances constitutional claims relating to his conviction, these claims were not presented to the district court and therefore are not properly before this court. *See Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co.,*928 F.2d 966, 970 (10th Cir.1991).

The district court’s decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in real estate,
participating mortgage loans, and real estate joint ventures.  In
accordance with industry practice, its balance sheet is unclassified.  For
full information, refer to the accompanying unaudited financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,955,875
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  243,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,687,206<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  42,352,099<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,687,206<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               645,430<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               392,484<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                252,946
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            252,946
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   252,946
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.31<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net investments
in building and improvements of $6,242,225, investment in unconsolidated
partnership of $18,982,370, net investments in participating mortgage loan
of $13,755,767 and net deferred expenses of $507,748.
<F2>Represents partners' capital.
<F3>Liabilities include accounts payable and other liabilities of $237,188 and
security deposits of $97,919.
<F4>Total revenue includes rent of $359,123, interest on participating
mortgage loan of $21,860, equity in earnings of unconsolidated
partnership of $224,461 and other revenue of $39,986.
<F5>Other expenses include property operating expenses of $211,422, 
depreciation and amortization of $103,507 and general and administrative
expenses of $77,555.
<F6>Represents net income per Unit of limited partnership interest.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court

Jan. Term, 1898.)

Before Cox, Swing and Smith, JJ.

#### JOHN WENTZEL v. ELIZA HAYES et al.

*Homestead exemption*— Condition *that claimant has eare of etc. of minor child does not apply to widow—*

*Widoio’s mortgage on her own interest does not preclude her from claiming homestead exemption against judgment against interest of others*— ■

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

Swing, J.;

Cox and Smith, JJ, concur.

We think the judgment of the court of common pleas should be affirmed.

Eliza Hayes was entitled under section 5441 to the homestead exemption therein allowed. She was a widow, and as such she was entitled to the homestead exemption, although not having in good faith the care, maintenance and custody of a minor child. These provisions do not apply to a widow.

The mortgage given by her in this case on her interest of eight-twelfths of the land does not preclude her from asserting her homestead exemption out of the judgment and mortgage which she held against the two-twelfths interest of others.

The court did not err in refusing, after judgment, to per*111mit Burkham to file his answer setting up the fact tnat this prior judgment was void because no service had been had on the answer and cross petition of Wentzel, for it does not affirmatively appear that service was not waived or appearance entered.

*John Wentzel,*for the Plaintiff in Error.

*James B. Mason,*and *John li. Holmes,*contra.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                             AVONDALE INCORPORATED
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
                                TO FIXED CHARGES
                      (AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT RATIOS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             Fiscal Year Ended
                                                            1996       1997       1998       1999       2000
                                                            -----      -----      -----      -----      -----
<S>                                                         <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense                                         $18.5      $26.2      $23.3      $23.0      $20.2
   Discount and expenses on sale of
     accounts receivable                                      3.7        6.6        7.3        5.6        5.6
   Amortization of debt issuance costs                         .9        1.1        1.1        1.1        1.1
                                                            -----      -----      -----      -----      -----
     Fixed Charges                                          $23.1      $33.9      $31.7      $29.7      $26.9
                                                            =====      =====      =====      =====      =====
Earnings
   Pretax income before
     extraordinary item                                     $22.7      $37.9      $55.4      $16.3      $51.6
   Fixed charges                                             23.1       33.9       31.7       29.7       26.9
                                                            -----      -----      -----      -----      -----
     Earnings                                               $45.8      $71.8      $87.1      $46.0      $78.5
                                                            =====      =====      =====      =====      =====

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                            2.0x       2.1x       2.8x       1.5x       2.9x
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6972

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TONY TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00279-D-1)

Submitted: December 16, 2021 Decided: December 20, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy 

Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Taylor appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a sentence 

reduction under section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 

Stat. 5194, 5222, and denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Taylor, No. 5:06-cr00279-D-1 (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2021). We deny Taylor’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel. 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
Order entered December 16, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00839-CR

TOREY BOYKIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-82130-2012

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s December 12, 2013 third motion to extend time to file 

his brief.

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has 

not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 
ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
MICHAEL A. JENKINS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 0634

_____ ________________________/

Opinion filed July 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Brad Stetson , Judge

.

Michael A. Jenkins, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahasse e , for Appellee.

PER C URIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, John A. Moore, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Retirement VillasProperties II, a California Limited Partnership; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days priorto the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls; and 

 

6. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Date: August 16, 2004
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1012** 

In re: ROGER CHARLES DAY, JR. ,

Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 3:07

- cr - 00154

- JAG

- 3 )

Submitted : March 29, 2015 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Roger Day, Jr. , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roger Day, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, citing 28 U.S.C. § 455 (2012) and alleging bias on the part of the district
court judge . He seeks an order from this court directing the district court judge to recuse himself . We find the present record does not warrant an order requiring the district court judge to recuse himself . Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis , we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

a dequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would n ot aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED