alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50365 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. LUIS ALONSO FERRUFINO

- RODRIGUEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 906

- 1

Before KING, JOLLY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis Alonso Ferrufino

- Rodriguez (Ferrufino) was sentenced to a 52

- month term of imprisonment following his guilty plea to illegal reentry of a deported alien. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that it is greater than n ecessary to satisfy the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the Sentencing G uidelines placed undue weight on his single prior felony offense.

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 Decem ber 15, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50365 Document: 00512869314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2014No. 14

- 50365

We review Ferrufino’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence for abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 49

- 51 (2007), and apply a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to the within

guidelines sentence, see United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). F or purposes of preserving the issue for possible further review, Ferrufino argues that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply because the illegal reentry Guideline lacks an empirical basis. As Ferrufino concedes, his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528 , 529

- 31 (5th Cir. 2009); Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d at 366

- 67. W e have rejected the argument that double and triple counting necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable. See Duarte , 569 F.3d at 529

- 31 ; United States v. Palma

- Palma , 551 F. App’x 220, 22 1 (5th Cir.) , cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 2154 (2014). Moreover, Ferrufino has not shown that his sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Mere disagreement with the propriety of his sentence or with the weight given to § 3553(a) factors does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within

- guidelines sentence. Se e United States v. Ruiz , 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-50365 Document: 00512869314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2014
1 The HONORABLE GARY A. FENNER, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the HONORABLE JAMES C. ENGLAND, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-3478

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Minor Moody, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 28, 2002 Filed: April 4, 2002

___________ Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Minor Moody appeals from the district court’s 1 commitment order following proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. Having carefully reviewed the record, and having considered the unanimous expert opinion, we reject Moody’s contention that the district court clearly erred in finding he suffered from a mental disease or defect such that his unconditional release would create a substantial risk of danger. See-2- United States v. S.A. , 129 F.3d 995, 1000 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review), cert. denied , 523 U.S. 1011 (1998). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court committing Moody to the custody of the Attorney General pending the location of a suitable facility to oversee his conditional release. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, over Moody’s resistance. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 105.11 Individuals not requiring a security risk assessment. ( a ) *Citizens and nationals of the United States.* A citizen or national of the United States is not subject to section 113 of ATSA unless otherwise designated by the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. A Provider must determine whether a prospective trainee is a citizen or national of the United States prior to providing training in the operation of an aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more. To establish United States citizenship or nationality, the prospective trainee must show the Provider from whom he or she seeks training any of the following documents as proof of United States citizenship or nationality: ( 1 ) A valid, unexpired United States passport;
( 2 ) An original or government-issued certified birth certificate with a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of birth, together with a government-issued picture identification of the individual named in the birth certificate (the birth certificate must establish that the person was born in the United States or in an outlying possession, as defined in section 101(a)(29) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(29)));
( 3 ) An original United States naturalization certificate with raised seal, INS Form N-550 or INS Form N-570, together with a government-issued picture identification of the individual named in the certificate;
( 4 ) An original certification of birth abroad with raised seal, Department of State Form FS-545 or Form DS-1350, together with a government-issued picture identification of the individual named in the certificate;
( 5 ) An original certificate of United States citizenship with raised seal, INS Form N-560 or Form N-561, together with a government-issued picture identification of the individual named in the certificate; or
( 6 ) In the case of training provided to a federal employee (including military personnel) pursuant to a contract between a federal agency and a Provider, the agency's written certification as to its employee's United States citizenship/nationality, together with the employee's government-issued credentials or other federally-issued picture identification.
( b ) *Exception.* Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a Provider is required to provide notification to the Attorney General with respect to any individual specified by the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. Individuals specified by the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security will be identified by procedures developed by the Department of Transportation and are not eligible for expedited processing under § 105.12 of this part.
¡Aunque las 

manos se vean 

limpias pueden 

tener microbios 

asquerosos! 

¡Lávate 

las 

manos!

Este material fue elaborado por los CDC. La campaña “La Vida es Mejor con las Manos Limpias” es posible gracias a una asociación entre la 

Fundación de los CDC, GOJO Industries y Staples. Los CDC y el HHS no respaldan productos, servicios ni empresas comerciales.
#### § 14.1 Scope of regulations.

These regulations shall apply only to claims asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The terms *Federal agency* and *agency,* as used in this part, include the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States but do not include any contractor with the United States.

[Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52355, Oct. 27, 1981]
Exhibit 32.1

                     Certification Pursuant to Section 906
                       of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Franklyn
Resources II, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Frank L. Kramer,
President of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

     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 or operations of the
        Company.



/s/ FRANK L. KRAMER                                          August 14, 2008
---------------------------------
Frank L. Kramer
Principal Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

[To be announced].

# STATUS:

Closed meeting.

# PLACE:

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

# DATE AND TIME OF PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED MEETING:

March 17, 2011 at 10 a.m.

# CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

Additional item.

The following matter will also be considered during the 10 a.m. closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 17, 2011: A litigation matter.

Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the item listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: March 11, 2011.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-6132 Filed 3-11-11; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
§ 1.6 Consideration of petitions; notification of victims; recommendations to the President. ( a ) Upon receipt of a petition for executive clemency, the Attorney General shall cause such investigation to be made of the matter as he or she may deem necessary and appropriate, using the services of, or obtaining reports from, appropriate officials and agencies of the Government, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
( b ) ( 1 ) When a person requests clemency (in the form of either a commutation of a sentence or a pardon after serving a sentence) for a conviction of a felony offense for which there was a victim, and the Attorney General concludes from the information developed in the clemency case that investigation of the clemency case warrants contacting the victim, the Attorney General shall cause reasonable effort to be made to notify the victim or victims of the crime for which clemency is sought: ( i ) That a clemency petition has been filed;
( ii ) That the victim may submit comments regarding clemency; and
( iii ) Whether the clemency request ultimately is granted or denied by the President.
( 2 ) In determining whether contacting the victim is warranted, the Attorney General shall consider the seriousness and recency of the offense, the nature and extent of the harm to the victim, the defendant's overall criminal history and history of violent behavior, and the likelihood that clemency could be recommended in the case.
( 3 ) For the purposes of this paragraph (b), “victim” means an individual who: ( i ) Has suffered direct or threatened physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of the crime for which clemency is sought (or, in the case of an individual who died or was rendered incompetent as a direct and proximate result of the commission of the crime for which clemency is sought, one of the following relatives of the victim (in order of preference): the spouse; an adult offspring; or a parent); and
( ii ) Has on file with the Federal Bureau of Prisons a request to be notified pursuant to 28 CFR 551.152 of the offender's release from custody.
( 4 ) For the purposes of this paragraph (b), “reasonable effort” is satisfied by mailing to the last-known address reported by the victim to the Federal Bureau of Prisons under 28 CFR 551.152.
( 5 ) The provisions of this paragraph (b) apply to clemency cases filed on or after September 28, 2000.
( c ) The Attorney General shall review each petition and all pertinent information developed by the investigation and shall determine whether the request for clemency is of sufficient merit to warrant favorable action by the President. The Attorney General shall report in writing his or her recommendation to the President, stating whether in his or her judgment the President should grant or deny the petition.
[Order No. 2323-2000, 65 FR 58223, Sept. 28, 2000]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6084
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRONE LOVELL STATON, a/k/a T Bone, a/k/a Bone, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-108) Submitted: May 7, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996 Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Lovell Staton, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Dee Griffith, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant Tyrone Lovell Staton appeals the district court'sorder denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion to vacate his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Staton , No. CR-90-108 (E.D. Va. Dec. 19, 1995). We find that the ambiguity existing in Staton's resentencing agreement with the Government constituted only harmless error and that the court properly applied a base offense level of 30. We also find harmless the resentencing court's mistaken reference to an incorrect count of the grand jury indictment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10(n)


THE GILLETTE COMPANY SENIOR EXECUTIVE
FINANCIAL PLANNING PROGRAM


Eligibility              Chairman/CEO of the Company and his/her direct reports

Program                  Benefit Reimbursement by Company of financial
                         counseling, estate planning, tax preparation,
                         retirement and other related financial planning
                         services for the participant and his/her spouse,
                         domestic partner or dependent children

Available Providers      Any qualified tax, financial, legal or similar firm
                         selected by participant

Excluded                 Services Brokerage or other investment transaction
                         fees; asset management fees; insurance premiums;
                         services for individuals other than participant,
                         his/her spouse or domestic partner and dependent
                         children

Maximum Benefit          During employment: Chairman/CEO - $15,000/other
                         participants - $11,000 of reimbursements received in
                         any calendar year

                         Following retirement under a Company-sponsored
                         retirement plan:  $6,000 of reimbursements received in
                         any calendar year, over the participant's life

Tax                      Effects Program benefits received by participant will
                         be includable in compensation. Company will provide
                         tax gross-up for Federal and State income taxes and
                         FICA Medicare tax.

Termination of           Last day of calendar year in which participant ceases
Participation            to be an executive officer of the Company, unless
                         participant qualifies for retirement benefits under
                         this program.

Program Amendment        At discretion of the Company, by action of the
and Termination          Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors,
                         without requirement of advance notice

Effective                Date July 1, 2003 (for the Chairman/CEO of the Company
                         and his/her direct reports in such positions on or
                         after such date)
### SUBCHAPTER LIX–H—KALAUPAPA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  SBA Leadership 
-  Destine Hicks-Lundy 

#   Destine Hicks-Lundy

White House Liaison

            Download high-resolution image          

Destine Hicks-Lundy serves as the White House Liaison to the Office of the Administrator.Before joining the SBA, Ms. Hicks-Lundy served as the Deputy White House Liaison at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after serving as an Associate Director in the White House’s Office of Presidential Personnel. Before joining the administration, she served on the Biden-Harris Transition and President Biden’s campaign in several roles, including South Carolina Deputy Operations Director, Florida Operations Director, and National Southern Regional Operations Director. In addition, Ms. Hicks-Lundy has supported several state representatives as a legislative aide in the South Carolina House of Representatives.

She has received notable honors, such as the Columbia Business Monthly’s 2021’s Best and Brightest 35 & under. She attended Columbia College and Webster University.
§ 25.5 Validation and data integrity of records in the system. ( a ) The FBI will be responsible for maintaining data integrity during all NICS operations that are managed and carried out by the FBI. This responsibility includes: ( 1 ) Ensuring the accurate adding, canceling, or modifying of NICS Index records supplied by Federal agencies;
( 2 ) Automatically rejecting any attempted entry of records into the NICS Index that contain detectable invalid data elements;
( 3 ) Automatic purging of records in the NICS Index after they are on file for a prescribed period of time; and
( 4 ) Quality control checks in the form of periodic internal audits by FBI personnel to verify that the information provided to the NICS Index remains valid and correct.
( b ) Each data source will be responsible for ensuring the accuracy and validity of the data it provides to the NICS Index and will immediately correct any record determined to be invalid or incorrect.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 41248 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
TRINIDAD JAIMES

- JAIMES , Defendant

- Appellant

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

- CR

- 179

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Trinidad Jaimes

- Jaimes appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . H e contends that the district court plainly erred when it enhanced his sentence based on a finding that his 1996 Louisiana conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana was a felony drug trafficking offense for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b )(1)(A)(i).

* 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 July 27, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-41248 Document: 00513130771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015No. 13

- 41248

2 R elying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder , 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013), as well as our d ecision in United States v. Garza

- Lopez , 410 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2005), he contends that the Louisiana statute under which he was convicted is broader than the drug trafficking offense definition set forth in the commentary to § 2L1.2 because it proscribes the possession with intent to give away and administer a controlled substance. Because Jaimes

- Jaimes did not object to the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement in the district court, we review for plain error

. See United States v. Villegas , 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 2005) , superseded by regulation on other grounds as stated in United States v. Pimpton , 558 F. App’x 335, 337

- 38 (5th Cir. 2013).
In United States v. Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F.3d 198, 204

- 05 (5th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed (June 24, 2015) (No. 14

- 10355), we held that an enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior drug trafficking offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity. Further, Jaimes

- Jaimes has failed to establish a realistic probability that Louisiana would prosecute an individual under L A

. R EV

. S TAT

. A NN

. § 40 :966(A)(1) for administering a controlled substance “ in a way that does not also constitute either ‘ dispensing ’ or ‘ distributing ’ under the federal sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Teran

- Salas , 767 F.3d 453 , 460

- 62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied , 1 35 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). Therefore, Jaimes

Jaimes cannot show error, plain or otherwise. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). AFFIRMED. Case: 13-41248 Document: 00513130771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2015