alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Randolf DELANCEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50663

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 13, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western *377District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Raymond L. Kohler, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Larry Randolf Delancey appeals his life sentence following his jury-trial conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Delancey argues that his life sentence was unreasonable and complains that the district court failed to provide reasons for imposing that particular sentence. Because Delancey did not object to the life sentence or the fact that the court upwardly departed, his arguments are reviewed for plain error. *See United States v. Jones,*444 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir.2006).

Pursuant to *Booker,*this court ultimately determines whether the sentence imposed under the advisory guidelines was reasonable. *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); *United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 706 (5th Cir.2006). The sentencing court’s factual findings related to sentencing are accepted unless clearly erroneous; the sentencing court’s application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo. *Smith,*440 F.3d at 706.

In this case, the district court did not indicate that it was imposing sentence by departing upward from the guideline sentencing range or that the departure was one provided by the Guidelines. The sentence therefore was a “non-Guideline sentence.” *Id.*at 708 & n. 3.

In the event that the court imposes a non-guideline sentence, the “district court must more thoroughly articulate its reasons ... than when it imposes a sentence under authority of the Sentencing Guidelines.” *Id.*at 707. “Such reasons are essential to permit this court to review the sentence for reasonableness as directed by *Booker.” United States v. Hardin,*437 F.3d 463, 470-71 (5th Cir.2006).

Here, the district court failed to state any reasons for the departure. Thus, this court cannot conduct a meaningful review of the sentence. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of assignment of reasons in accordance with *Smith*and *Hardin.*Following the district court’s assignment of reasons, the case should be returned to this court. This court retains jurisdiction of the appeal during the pendency of the limited remand. *See Wheeler v. City of Columbus,*686 F.2d 1144, 1154 (5th Cir. 1982).

LIMITED REMAND.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
§ 6.152 Practices which put retailer independence at risk. The practices specified in this section put retailer independence at risk. The practices specified here are examples and do not constitute a complete list of those practices that put retailer independence at risk. ( a ) The act by an industry member of resetting stock on a retailer's premises (other than stock offered for sale by the industry member).
( b ) The act by an industry member of purchasing or renting display, shelf, storage or warehouse space (*i.e.* slotting allowance).
( c ) Ownership by an industry member of less than a 100 percent interest in a retailer, where such ownership is used to influence the purchases of the retailer.
( d ) The act by an industry member of requiring a retailer to purchase one alcoholic beverage product in order to be allowed to purchase another alcoholic beverage product at the same time.
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 (formerly part 275) appear at T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39093, July 27, 2001.

§ 41.26 Alternate methods or procedures. An importer, on specific approval by the appropriate TTB officer as provided in this section, may use an alternate method or procedure in lieu of a method or procedure specifically prescribed in this part. The appropriate TTB officer may approve an alternate method or procedure, subject to stated conditions, when he finds that— ( a ) Good cause has been shown for the use of the alternate method or procedure,
( b ) The alternate method or procedure is within the purpose of, and consistent with the effect intended by, the specifically prescribed method or procedure, and affords equivalent security to the revenue, and
( c ) The alternate method of procedure will not be contrary to any provision of law, and will not result in an increase in cost to the Government or hinder the effective administration of this part.
No alternate method or procedure relating to the giving of any bond or to the assessment, payment, or collection of tax, shall be authorized under this section. When an importer desires to employ an alternate method or procedure, he shall submit a written application to do so, in triplicate, to the appropriate TTB officer. The application shall specifically describe the proposed alternate method or procedure, and shall set forth the reasons therefor. Alternate methods or procedures shall not be employed until the application has been approved by the appropriate TTB officer. The importer shall, during the period of authorization of an alternate method or procedure, comply with the terms of the approved application. Authorization for any alternate method or procedure may be withdrawn whenever in the judgment of the appropriate TTB officer the revenue is jeopardized or the effective administration of this part is hindered. The importer shall retain, as part of his records, any authorization of the appropriate TTB officer under this section. [26 FR 8190, Aug. 31, 1961. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and further redesignated and amended by T.D. TTB-16, 69 FR 52424, Aug. 26, 2004]
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey F. Joseph, Chief Executive Officer of Presidential Realty Corporation
(the "Company") certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company;

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 respect to
   the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in
   this quarterly report;

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

      a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
           material information relating to the Company, 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 Company's disclosure controls and
           procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
           effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
           end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
           and

      c)   disclosed in this report any changes in the Company's internal
           control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's
           most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
           reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal
           control over financial reporting; and

5. The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
   most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
   the Company's auditors and the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of
   Directors:

      a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
          control over financial reporting.



  DATE:   May 16, 2005            By: /s/ Jeffrey F. Joseph
                                      --------------------------
                                      Jeffrey F. Joseph
                                      Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.5

                       GE CAPITAL MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.
             OFFICERS' ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE - SERIES 2000-5

         The undersigned,  Vice Presidents of GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc.
(the "Servicer"), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the Series
2000-5 REMIC Multi-Class  Mortgage  Pass-Through  Certificates (the "Agreement")
entered into by GE Capital Mortgage Services,  Inc., as Seller and Servicer, and
State Street Bank and Trust Company,  as Trustee,  which  Agreement  requires an
annual  statement of  compliance  to be made to the Trustee by an officer of the
Servicer, hereby state that:

         (i)      a  review  of  the  activities  of  the  Servicer  during  the
                  preceding  calendar  year  and of its  performance  under  the
                  Agreement  has  been  made  under  the  undersigned  officers'
                  supervision; and

         (ii)     to the best of the undersigned  officers' knowledge,  based on
                  such review,  the Servicer has  fulfilled  all of its material
                  obligations  under the Agreement  throughout such year, except
                  as set forth on Exhibit A hereto.

Capitalized  terms used  herein but not  defined  herein  shall have the meaning
given to them in the Agreement.

All questions relative to this certification  should be directed to Mary Kaplan,
Investor Relations at 856-661-6588.

Dated:            March 23, 2001

By:      /s/ Jacqui Maloney-Peace
---------------------------------
         Jacqui Maloney-Peace
         Senior Vice President

By:      /s/ Jeffrey W. Williams
--------------------------------
         Jeffrey W. Williams
         Vice President
<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBIT A

                                      NONE
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY

 8,615

 8,532

 8,565

 8,396

 8,356

 8,744

 8,969

 8,812

 8,840

 8,764

 8,391

 8,130

 8,042

 7,936

 7,963

 8,070

 8,467

 8,709

 8,797

 8,876

 8,977

 8,906

 8,648

 8,507

 8,085

 7,706

 7,884

 8,077

 8,194

 8,276

 8,437

 45,577

 46,174

 47,035

 48,095

 48,741

 49,875

 51,092

 52,026

 52,479

 52,848

 53,333

 53,643

 53,665

 53,631

 53,476

 53,321

 52,997

 52,905

 53,099

 53,580

 53,878

 54,200

 54,805

 55,099

 55,626

 56,196

 56,761

 57,317

 57,688

 58,011

 58,330

STORAGE - A.F. 

 54,192

 54,706

 55,600

 56,491

 57,097

 58,619

 60,061

 60,838

 61,319

 61,612

 61,724

 61,773

 61,707

 61,567

 61,439

 61,391

 61,464

 61,614

 61,896

 62,456

 62,855

 63,106

 63,453

 63,606

 63,711

 63,902

 64,645

 65,394

 65,882

 66,287

 66,767

2,827

6,945

6,661

5,618

4,611

8,527

8,475

6,580

4,862

4,145

3,612

3,552

3,239

3,119

3,077

2,986

3,003

2,579

3,186

3,411

3,123

2,835

3,675

3,042

3,135

2,859

3,423

3,949

3,283

2,947

2,993

2,832

7,204

7,112

6,067

4,917

9,294

9,202

6,972

5,105

4,293

3,668

3,577

3,206

3,048

3,012

2,962

3,040

2,655

3,328

3,726

3,324

2,962

3,850

3,119

3,188

4,898

3,798

2,772

3,529

3,151

3,235

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2019 FULL NATURAL FLOW AT NEW MELONES DAM RUN DATE: 04/01/2019

TOTALS +12,585 133,046

* October 1, 263,897

 342.8

 357.1

 371.2

 383.3

 393.0

 411.5

 429.7

 443.5

 453.7

 462.2

 469.5

 476.6

 482.9

 489.0

 494.9

 500.8

 506.8

 512.1

 518.7

 526.1

 532.7

 538.6

 546.2

 552.4

 558.7

 568.4

 576.0

 581.5

 588.5

 594.7

 601.1

DONNELLS

RES

BEARDSLEY

RES

2018 TO DATE

NEW

MELONES

INFLOW

C.F.S

NATURAL

RIVER

C.F.S

ACCUM *

FULL

NATURAL

1000 A.F.

RESERVOIR

TOTAL

+10

+514

+894

+891

+606

+1,522

+1,442

+777

+481

+293

+112

+49

-66

-140

-128

-48

+73

+150

+282

+560

+399

+251

+347

+153

+105

+191

+743

+749

+488

+405

+480

CHANGE

A.F. C.F.S.

+5

+259

+451

+449

+306

+767

+727

+392

+243

+148

+56

+25

-33

-71

-65

-24

+37

+76

+142

+282

+201

+127

+175

+77

+53

+96

+375

+378

+246

+204

+242
### Part A—The Institute of Education Sciences
### §76ee. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $15,000,000 for the planning and construction of the Joseph H. Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, and such additional sums as may be necessary for the maintenance and operation of such museum and sculpture garden.

(Pub. L. 89–788, §5, Nov. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 1404.)
#### In the Matter of the Application of Sidney Szerlip for Reinstatement as an Attorney.

Present— Carswell, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 555

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 555 appear by T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3748, Jan. 24, 2003.

#### § 555.25 Disclosure of information.

Upon receipt of written request from any State or any political subdivision of a State, the Director, Industry Operations may make available to the State or political subdivision any information which the Director, Industry Operations may obtain under the Act with respect to the identification of persons within the State or political subdivision, who have purchased or received explosive materials, together with a description of the explosive materials.

[T.D. ATF-87, 46 FR 40384, Aug. 7, 1981, as amended by ATF 2013R-9F, 79 FR 46693, Aug. 11, 2014]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ

- CORTEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No s . 18

- 50112 18

- 50113
D.C. No s
. 3:16

- cr - 02834

- DMS

3:11

- cr - 00287

- DMS
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018 **
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Pedro Rodriguez

- Cortez challenges the 64

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U .S.C. § 1326, and the
consecutive 6

- month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 50112 & 18

- 50113

release , which he was serving in connection with a 2010 illegal reentry conviction

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Rodriguez

- Cortez contends that the 64

- month sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of mitigating factors such as his age, his reason for reentering , t he nature and age of some of his prior felony convictions, and
amendments to the illegal reentry Gu ideline that went into effect after his 2010 illegal reentry conviction

. He also argues that the consecutive 6

- month revocation

sentence is unnecessary because the 64

- month sentence adequately serves the purposes of sentencing

. The district cour t did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence s are substantively reasonable in light of the
statutory sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rodriguez

- Cortez’s extensive crimina l h istory , the need for deterrence, and his
breach of the court’s trust

. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e); Gall , 552 U.S. at
51 ; United States v. Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 106 2 (9th Cir. 2007) ( breach of the court’s trust is a proper consideration at a revocation sentencing)

. AFFIRMED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 798.44

 798.41

 798.45

 798.48

 798.64

 798.84

 798.95

 799.15

 799.39

 799.75

 800.10

 800.21

 800.42

 800.54

 800.38

 800.38

 800.84

 801.20

 801.40

 801.69

 801.99

 802.30

 802.21

 802.12

 801.90

 801.54

 801.19

 800.82

 800.45

 800.06

 799.59

 267.7

 267.6

 267.8

 267.9

 268.4

 269.0

 269.4

 270.0

 270.8

 272.0

 273.1

 273.5

 274.1

 274.5

 274.0

 274.0

 275.5

 276.7

 277.3

 278.3

 279.3

 280.3

 280.0

 279.7

 279.0

 277.8

 276.7

 275.4

 274.2

 273.0

 271.4

STORAGE

+0.0

-0.1

+0.1

+0.1

+0.5

+0.6

+0.4

+0.6

+0.8

+1.2

+1.1

+0.4

+0.7

+0.4

-0.5

+0.0

+1.5

+1.2

+0.7

+1.0

+1.0

+1.0

-0.3

-0.3

-0.7

-1.2

-1.2

-1.2

-1.2

-1.3

-1.5

CHANGE

608

596

791

664

870

979

458

602

1,214

871

883

915

841

939

21

278

1,043

863

594

749

770

790

756

804

599

357

379

336

289

320

303

INFLOW

 343

 395

 457

 342

 344

 391

 9

 9

 548

 10

 9

 457

 223

 463

 9

 10

 10

 8

 8

 6

 6

 10

 634

 690

 691

 683

 691

 685

 645

 607

 626

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 246

 246

 246

 246

 246

 246

 246

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 248

 342

 436

OUTLET

 3

 3

 23

 27

 21

 18

 25

 19

 26

 25

 53

 29

 25

 30

 27

 20

 28

 13

 7

 15

 19

 15

 24

 16

 26

 22

 20

 14

 5

 12

 9

C.F.S.

 .03

 .03

 .22

 .26

 .20

 .17

 .24

 .18

 .25

 .24

 .50

 .28

 .24

 .28

 .26

 .19

 .26

 .12

 .07

 .14

 .18

 .14

 .22

 .15

 .24

 .21

 .19

 .13

 .05

 .11

 .09

INCHES

 .15

 .22

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .29

 .12

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .35

 .11

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2015 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 9, 2015

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +3.8 20,482 10,019 0 7,956 619 5.87 1.25

ACRE-FEET +3,800 40,626 19,873 0 15,781 1,228

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 19,873

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 15,781

 35,654

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 1.25

JULY 1, 2015 1.27

 267.7

Table 13
###### Editorial Note on Part 478

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 478 appear by T.D. ATF-411, 64 FR 17291, Apr. 9, 1999, T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3750, Jan. 24, 2003, and ATF-11F, 73 FR 57240, Oct. 2, 2008.

#### § 478.55 Continuing partnerships.

Where, under the laws of the particular State, the partnership is not terminated on death or insolvency of a partner, but continues until the winding up of the partnership affairs is completed, and the surviving partner has the exclusive right to the control and possession of the partnership assets for the purpose of liquidation and settlement, such surviving partner may continue to operate the business under the license of the partnership. If such surviving partner acquires the business on completion of the settlement of the partnership, he shall obtain a license in his own name from the date of acquisition, as provided in § 478.44. The rule set forth in this section shall also apply where there is more than one surviving partner.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19


                         Tekelec 1998 Officer Bonus Plan


The Company's executive compensation program for the year ending December 31,
1998 includes the 1998 Officer Bonus Plan as approved by the Company's Board of
Directors. Under the terms of the 1998 Officer Bonus Plan, each executive
officer is eligible to receive a cash bonus equal to a percentage of his annual
base salary if the Company achieves certain pre-established financial
performance goals for the year ending December 31, 1998. Bonuses under such Plan
are only paid if the Company's revenues and operating income meet or exceed both
a threshold 100% of the revenue goal and operating income goal as set forth in
the Company's business plan and as approved by the Board of Directors.

The following schedules list the various bonus levels achievable for the various
executive officers at certain levels of corporate and divisional performance for
1998. Bonuses are calculated and paid according to these following schedules
which are used by applying the applicable bonus percentage to the annual base
salary for the eligible officer.

Bonus payments, if any, will be made in one lump sum payable after the revenue
and operating income results for fiscal 1998 have been finalized and any review
and audit by the Company's outside accountants has been completed.

Unless additional officers are explicitly included in the 1998 Officer Bonus
Plan pursuant to a subsequent, duly adopted Board resolution, only the following
officers of the Company are eligible to participate in the 1998 Officer Bonus
Plan: Chief Executive Officer; President; Vice President, Finance, Chief
Financial Officer; Division Executives; Vice President, Operations; Vice
President, Human Resources; and the President of Tekelec, Ltd.

If an officer is subject to divisional financial performance goals, the officer
must meet the applicable divisional goals as well as the applicable Company
goals in order to be eligible to receive a bonus under the Plan.