alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-1429

___________ United States, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Arizona Logan, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 20, 2007 Filed: December 21, 2007

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arizona Logan challenges the 136-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to committing armed bank robbery and assaulting bank employees with a dangerous weapon dur ing its commission, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (twenty-five-year maxi mum prison term). At sentencing, the district court granted the government’s motion for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, determined an advisory Guide lines range of 121-151 months, and – after stating that it had considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and noting Logan’s-2- history of substance abuse – imposed the 136-month prison sentence, 5 years of supervised release, and mandatory restitution of $23,175, representing the unrecovered portion of the robbery proceeds. On appeal, Logan’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requesting permission to withdraw and suggesting that the govern ment should have move d for a substantialassistance departure in light of informa tion Logan provided re garding the alleged location of the unrecovered money, eventhough the information did not lead to recovery of the money and Logan failed a polygraph examination.
The government’s decision not to file a motion for a downward departure based on substantial assistance may be challenged only if the de fendant makes a substantial threshold showing of prosecutorial discrimination, irrational conduct, or bad faith. See United States v. Hardy , 325 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir. 2003). We conclude that Logan has made no such show ing. We also conclude that Logan’s prison sentence, below the statutory maximum and within th e applicable advisory Guidelines range, is presumptively reasonable. SeeRita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Harris , 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007) . Furthermore, the record indicates that the district court appropriate ly considered the factors in section 3553(a), and nothing in it suggests that the court misapplied those factors. See Harris , 493 F.3d at 932-33.
After reviewing the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
#### Marie Carole St. Julien, Respondent, v Jacques V. LaGuerre et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[831 NYS2d 729]

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting of the income, expenses, and distributions of CLS Holdings, Inc., Micayo Corporation, and Mirelle’s Restaurant, and the for appointment of a receiver of those corporations, the defendants Jacques V LaGuerre, CLS Holdings, Inc., and Micayo Corporation appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J), dated December 16, 2005, which, inter alia, granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for the appointment of a temporary receiver over CLS Holdings, Inc., and Micayo Corporation.

*533Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants’ contention that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this action pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 720 was not properly raised and, in any event, is without merit *(see Abrams v Donati,*66 NY2d 951, 953 [1985]; *Kaplan v Queens Optometric Assoc.,*293 AD2d 449, 450 [2002]; *Brown v Brown,*143 AD2d 248, 249 [1988]).

The plaintiff established a sufficient basis for the appointment of a temporary receiver pursuant to CPLR 6401 (a) *(see Hoffman v Eagle Box Co.,*305 AD2d 544 [2003]; *Matter of Kristensen v Charleston Sq.,*273 AD2d 312 [2000]; *Modern Collection Assoc. v Capital Group,*140 AD2d 594 [1988]; *Nesis v Paris Intl. Light.,*184 AD2d 485, 486 [1992]; *Nelson v Nelson,*99 AD2d 917 [1984]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit *(see State of New York v Chatsworth Realty Corp.,*284 AD2d 260, 261 [2001]; 3-12 White, New York Business Entities P B1202.01 [Matthew Bender 2005]). Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
### §9208. Administrative provisions

#### (a) Monitoring of performance; collection and evaluation of data

The Secretary, in coordination with such Government agencies as may be appropriate, shall—

(1) monitor the performance and operation of wind energy systems installed under this chapter; and

(2) collect and evaluate data and information on the performance and operation of wind energy systems installed under this chapter.

#### (b) Liaison

The Secretary shall also maintain continuing liaison with related industries and interests and with the scientific and technical community in order to assure that the benefits of programs under this chapter are and will continue to be realized to the maximum extent feasible.

#### (c) Availability of information

The Secretary shall assure, subject to section 552 of title 5 and section 1905 of title 18, that full and complete information with respect to any program, project, or other activity conducted under this chapter is made available to Federal, State, and local authorities, relevant segments of the economy, the scientific community, and the public so that the early, widespread, and practical use of wind energy throughout the United States is promoted to the maximum extent feasible.

(Pub. L. 96–345, §9, Sept. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 1144; Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1051(b), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 716.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1995—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 104–66 struck out par. (3) which read as follows: "from time to time carry out such studies and investigations and take such other actions, including the submission of special reports to the Congress when appropriate, as may be necessary to assure that the programs for which the Secretary is responsible under this chapter effectively carry out the purposes of this chapter."
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT    TO THE BYLAWS    OF    GUITAR CENTER, INC.  A Delaware Corporation

The undersigned, being the duly acting and appointed Secretary of Guitar Center, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby certifies that effective
July 26, 2001, the Board of Directors of this corporation amended the Bylaws of this corporation to read as follows, effective as of the date set forth below.

Article III,
Section 9 (Quorum), first sentence:



Dated:
July 26, 2001

| |  | /s/BRUCE L. ROSS        
| |  | ------------------------
| |  | Bruce L. Ross, Secretary

---

QuickLinks
#### § 96.67 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 17.111 Refunds. The Department will refund promptly to the appropriate individual amounts offset under these regulations when: ( a ) A debt is waived or otherwise found not owing the United States (unless expressly prohibited by statute or regulation); or
( b ) The Department is directed by an administrative or judicial order to refund amounts deducted from the employee's current pay.
§ 214.100 General. An organization may be approved by HUD as a HUD-approved housing counseling agency upon meeting the requirements of § 214.103 and upon completing the application procedures set forth in this subpart B. ( a ) *Approval.* The approval of a housing counseling agency and the certification of a HUD certified housing counselor does not create or imply a warranty or endorsement by HUD of the approved agency, or its employees, including counselors, to a prospective client or to any other organization or individual, nor does it represent a warranty of any housing counseling provided by the agency or a HUD certified housing counselor working for an agency. Approval means only that the agency has met the qualifications and conditions prescribed by HUD, and a HUD certified housing counselor only means the housing counselor has successfully passed an examination pursuant to these regulations and works for a participating agency.
( b ) *Effective date.* Agencies approved by HUD on or before October 29, 2007 and agencies that have submitted applications to HUD on or before September 28, 2007 and that are subsequently approved, are required to be in full compliance with the requirements in this part on October 1, 2007. Agencies approved after October 29, 2007 must comply with this part.
[72 FR 55648, Sept. 28, 2007, as amended at 81 FR 90658, Dec. 14, 2016]
**EXHIBIT      21.1 **

**List      of Subsidiaries **

| **Name                of Subsidiaries**                       |   | **Jurisdiction** |                        |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|-----------------------------|
|                                                          |   |             |                        |
| Synutra,                Inc.                                  |   |             | State of Illinois |   |
|                                                          |   |             |                             |   |
| Qingdao                St. George Dairy Co., Ltd.             |   |             | PRC                         |   |
|                                                          |   |             |                             |   |
| Qingdao                Sheng Yuan Dairy Co., Ltd.             |   |             | PRC                         |   |
|                                                          |   |             |                             |   |
| Heilongjiang                Luobei Sheng Yuan Dairy Co., Ltd. |   |             | PRC                         |   |
|                                                          |   |             |                             |   |
| Bei’an                Yipin Dairy Co., Ltd.             |   |             | PRC                         |   |
|                                                          |   |             |                             |   |
| Zhangjiakou                Shen Yuan Dairy Co., Ltd.          |   |             | PRC                         |   |
|                                                          |   |             |                             |   |
| Mei                Tai Technology(Qingdao) Co.,Ltd.           |   |             | PRC                         |   |
|                                                          |   |             |                             |   |
| Inner                Mongolia Sheng Yuan Food Co.,Ltd         |   |             | PRC                         |   |
|                                                          |   |             |                             |   |
| Inner                Mongolia Meng Yuan Food Co.,Ltd          |   |             | PRC                         |   |

----
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW M. MUSAELIAN,

Plaintiff,

    v.

CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al., 

Defendants.                                                                           /

No. C 08-5054 MHP

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On May 26, 2009, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.  Docket No. 42. 

During the ten months thereafter, plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint.  Accordingly,

plaintiff’s action is dismissed in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010                                                               MARILYN HALL PATELUnited States District Court JudgeNorthern District of California

Case 3:08-cv-05054-MHP   Document 43   Filed 03/25/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-08T21:33:26-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### § 203.406 Maturity of debentures.

Debentures shall mature 20 years from the date of issue.
Rand Acquisition Corporation
                           450 Park Avenue, Suite 1001
                               New York, NY 10022

                                                                January 27, 2006

To the Stockholders of Lower Lakes Towing Ltd.

Re: Amendment to Lower Lakes Stock Purchase Agreement

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Reference is made to that certain Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of
September 2, 2005, among Rand Acquisition Corporation, LL Acquisition Corp. and
the stockholders of Lower Lakes Towing Ltd. signatories thereto (the "Sellers"),
as amended by letter agreement dated December 29, 2005 (as amended, the
"Agreement"). The parties to the Agreement hereby agree that Section 10.1(d) of
the Agreement is hereby further amended to replace the reference to "January 31,
2006" therein with "February 28, 2006".

Except as set forth herein, all other terms and provisions of the Agreement
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

Please acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing by executing this document in
the space provided below.

Sincerely,

RAND ACQUISITION CORPORATION


/s/ Laurence S. Levy
--------------------------------
Name: Laurence S. Levy
Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                      ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
LL ACQUISITION CORP.
                                      ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
                                      through its operating division, RBC
/s/ Laurence S. Levy                  CAPITAL PARTNERS, in its capacity as
--------------------------------      Sellers' Representative under the Ageement
Name: Laurence S. Levy
Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                      By: /s/ Owen Trotter
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Owen Trotter
                                          Title: Partner
#### McNaughton *v.*The State.

July 11, 1912.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Eawlings. Emanuel superior court. April 17, 1912.

This case was before the Supreme Court on a former occasion. *McNaughton*v. *State,*136 *Ga.*600 (71 S. E. 1038). After the judgment of the Supreme Court, affirming the judgment of the superior court in refusing to grant a new trial, was made the judgment of the latter court, the plaintiff in error, at the April term, 1912, made an extraordinary motion for new trial, under the *413provisions of the Civil Code, § 6092, on the ground of certain evidence alleged to have been discovered after the trial, and after the original motion for new trial had been overruled, and immediately preceding the term of.court to which the motion for new trial on extraordinary grounds was filed. After considering this evidence, and other evidence offered in rebuttal by the State, the court overruled the motion and refused to grant a new trial. The movant excepted.

*412Per Curiam.

This was an extraordinary motion for new trial upon the ground of alleged newly discovered evidence. In view of the rebutting evidence submitted by the State on the hearing of the motion, and the improbability, considering the evidence upon the trial, that the alleged newly discovered evidence would produce a different result on another trial, the judgment refusing a new trial must be affirmed. See *Malone*v. *State,*49 *Ga.*221, and other cases collated in 14 Michie’s Dig. 398.

Atkinson, J.

While I am of the opinion that the evidence on the trial was not sufficient to authorize the verdict, I concur in the opinion that the alleged newly discovered evidence would not probably produce a different result. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*413*A. L. Franklin, F. H. Saffold, W. W. Larsen,*and *Wilson, Bennett & Lamb din,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas S. Felder/ attorney-general, Alfred Herrington, solicitor-general, Hines & Jordan,*and *Reuben R. Arnold,*contra.
##### 



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 Metris Companies Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
A. Witham, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ John A. WithamJohn A. WithamExecutive Vice President and ChiefFinancial OfficerMay 7, 2004
#### McFADDEN, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Action by William P. McFadden against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. B. H. Ames, for appellant. H. L. Franklin, for respondent.

No opinion. Upon the plaintiff stipulating to reduce the judgment as entered to the sum of $2,368.58, the judgment as so reduced affirmed, without costs to either party; if such stipulation be not’ given, judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.
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



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of ACI Telecentrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Rick N. Diamond, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, 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)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operation of the Company.




Dated: /s/ June 3, 2003                            By:  /s/ RICK N. DIAMOND
       -------------------                              ------------------------
                                                   Rick N. Diamond
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-121443,
No. 333-134389 and No. 333-151023 on Form S-8 and No. 333-134415 on Form S-3 of our reports, dated
February 25, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Interline Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries and the effectiveness of Interline
Brands, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Interline Brands, Inc. for the year ended December 26,
2008.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Jacksonville,
Florida
February 25, 2009

---



QuickLinks
### §§92 to 96. Repealed. July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIII, §1313, 58 Stat. 714

Section 92, acts Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §3, 27 Stat. 450; July 1, 1902, ch. 1370, §1, 32 Stat. 712; Aug. 14, 1912, ch. 288, §1, 37 Stat. 309, provided for enforcement of quarantine regulations. See sections 264 to 267 of this title.

Section 92a, acts Apr. 29, 1878, ch. 66, §5, 20 Stat. 38; July 1, 1902, ch. 1370, §1, 32 Stat. 712; Aug. 14, 1912, §1, 37 Stat. 309, provided for a national quarantine system. See sections 264 to 267 of this title.

Section 93, acts Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §4, 27 Stat. 451; July 1, 1902, ch. 1370, §1, 32 Stat. 712; Aug. 14, 1912, ch. 288, §1, 37 Stat. 309, provided for duties of Surgeon General relating to quarantine. See sections 264 to 270 of this title.

Section 94, act Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §5, 27 Stat. 451, provided for regulations to secure sanitary conditions of vessels. See section 269 of this title.

Section 94a, act Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §14, as added Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 409, §1, 46 Stat. 1492, provided for hours of inspection at quarantine stations. See section 267 of this title.

Section 94b, act Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §16, as added Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 409, §1, 46 Stat. 1492, provided for schedule of charges and payment of them. See section 269 of this title.

Section 94c, act Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §15, as added Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 409, §1, 46 Stat. 1492, provided for procurement of health certificates. See section 269 of this title.

Section 94d, act Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §17, as added Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 409, §1, 46 Stat. 1492, provided medical and hospital benefits to officers and employees of national quarantine service. See section 253 of this title.

Section 94e, act Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 409, §3, 46 Stat. 1492, provided for extended quarantine service. See section 267 of this title.

Section 95, acts Mar. 27, 1890, ch. 51, §1, 26 Stat. 31; July 1, 1902, ch. 1370, §1, 32 Stat. 712; Aug. 14, 1912, ch. 288, §1, 37 Stat. 309, related to regulations to prevent spread of communicable diseases. See section 264 of this title.

Section 96, act June 19, 1906, ch. 3433, §6, 34 Stat. 301, provided that jurisdiction over established station acquired by the United States be ceded before payment of compensation.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Renumbering and Repeal of Repealing Act

Title XIII, §1313, formerly title VI, §611, of act July 1, 1944, which repealed these sections, was renumbered title VII, §711, by act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 958, §5, 60 Stat. 1049; §713, by act Feb. 28, 1948, ch. 83, §9(b), 62 Stat. 47; title VIII, §813, by act July 30, 1956, ch. 779, §3(b), 70 Stat. 721; title IX, §913, by Pub. L. 88–581, §4(b), Sept. 4, 1964, 78 Stat. 919; title X, §1013, by Pub. L. 89–239, §3(b), Oct. 6, 1965, 79 Stat. 931; title XI, §1113, by Pub. L. 91–572, §6(b), Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1506; title XII, §1213, by Pub. L. 92–294, §3(b), May 16, 1972, 86 Stat. 137; title XIII, §1313, by Pub. L. 93–154, §2(b)(2), Nov. 16, 1973, 87 Stat. 604, and was repealed by Pub. L. 93–222, §7(b), Dec. 29, 1973, 87 Stat. 936.