alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3444

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 Tremayne McFadden, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant.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

___________ Submitted: August 4, 2009 Filed: August 14, 2009

___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Tremayne McFadden appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his postjudgment motion for a sentence reduction. In 2006 McFadden pleaded guilty to a drug offense and, at his sentencing heari ng in 2007, the district court calculated an advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 108-135 months. The court sentenced McFadden to 72 months in pr ison. McFadden did not appeal. In 2008 he moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c )(2), based on Guidelines amendments that retroactively reduced base-offense-leve l calculations for crack cocaine offenses.-2- The district court agreed that the ame ndments lowered McFadde n’s Guidelines range to 87-108 months, but the court chose not to reduce the 72-month sentence.

We conclude the district court di d not abuse its discretion in denying McFadden’s motion. See United States v. Whiting , 522 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has discretionary authority under § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 to reduce sentence based on subsequently lowered Guidelines range). The court calculated the amended Guide lines range and determined that the original 72-month prison term--which was below the amended ra nge--was an appropriate sentence. See id. at 852-53 (when exercising its discretion, district court must calculate amended range, determine what senten ce it would have imposed had new range been in effect at original sentencing, and decide whether or not to modify sentence previously imposed). Because McFadden’s original sentence was below his then-applicable Guidelines range, the district court ha d authority to resentence him to a term comparably lower than the amended Guidelines range, but the court was not obligated to do so. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (court “may reduce” prison term); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (comparabl e reduction “may be appropr iate”). McFadden’s other arguments do not provide grounds for reversal. See United States v. Melvin , 556 F.3d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir.) (pro ceeding under § 3582(c)(2) is not full resentencing hearing), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 2382 (2009); United States v. Prince , No. 08-2994, 2009 WL 1383683, at *1 (8th Cir. 2009) ( unpublished per curiam) (same); United States v. Hasan , 245 F.3d 682, 685-90 (8th Cir. 2001) (post-sentencing conduct is irrelevant to district court’ s determination, in § 3582(c) proceedings, of what sentence it would have imposed at original sentencing).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s moti on to withdraw and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
#### In the Matter of Fred T. Santucci, Respondent, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and John Peri, Appellant.

In a proceeding under section 330 of the Election Law: (1) to invalidate a petition designating John Peri as a candidate of the Democratic party in the primary election to be held June 2, 1964 for a certain party position in the Eleventh Assembly District, Queens County; and (2) for other related relief, said designee appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 20, 1964 after a non jury trial, which granted the application and declared the designating petition a nullity. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, judgment directed denying the application (to declare invalid the designating petition) and declaring the petition to 'be valid. Findings of fact which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. On this record, we find that George A Capielo was in fact an enrolled Democrat and, hence, that he qualified as a member of the committee on vacancies (cf. *Matter of Brennan*v. *Power,*N. Y. L. J., Sept. 7, 1954, p. 9, col. 8, affd. 284 App. Div. 847, affd. *699307 N. Y. 818; Grassman, Election Law [2d ed.], § 80, pp. 448-449). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O S. A P - 76, 203 & A P - 76, 204

EX PA R TE BR EN T E D W A R D C A R N EY , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ONS F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N OS . 0 5 3 2 3 4 a n d 0 5 3 2 3 5 I N T HE 3 3 6 t h DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM GR AYSON CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u an t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt these a pplications for a

writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applica nt was convic ted of possession of che micals with intent to manufactur e a controlled substance and possession of methamphetamine. He wa s sentence d to ninety nine y ear s’ imprisonment in each c ause. Ap pli c ant c on te nd s th a t he wa s d e pr ive d o f h is m e anin g fu l r ig ht t o a dir e c t a pp e a l be c a

us e notices of a

ppeal we re not timely

filed in these c auses. Th e tr ia l c ourt ha s de te rm ine d that tim e ly no tic e s o f a

pp e a l w e re no t f

ile d thro ug h n o f

a ult2

of the Ap pli c ant. We fi nd , the re fo re , that App lic ant i s e nti tle d to the op po rt un ity to f ile ou t- of -t ime appea ls of the j udg ments of conviction in Cause Nos. 053234 and 053235 from the 336th J udicial District Court of Gra

y son County
. Applicant is order ed returned to that time at which he may g ive
a wr itt e n n oti c e s o f a

pp e a l so tha

t he may the n, wi th the a id of c ouns e l, ob ta in me anin g fu l a pp e a ls. All time lim its shall be calculated as if the se ntence s had bee n imposed on the date on w hich the mandate of

this Court i ssues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prose cute a ny appea ls, he must take aff

irmative steps to file a w ritten notices of a ppeal in the trial court within 30 day s after the mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s.

Deliver ed: August 26, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh
#### In the Matter of Donald A. Swan, Appellant, against Columbia University in the City of New York, Respondent.

Order dated October 6, 1959, as amended by the final order of October 22, 1959, denying petitioner’s application under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, and dismissing the petition, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.
1631.201-70 Credits. The provisions of FAR 31.201-5 shall apply to income, rebates, allowances, and other credits resulting from benefit payments. Examples of such credits include: ( a ) Coordination of benefit refunds, including subrogation settlements;
( b ) Hospital year-end settlements and other applicable provider discounts;
( c ) Uncashed and returned checks;
( d ) Utilization review refunds;
( e ) Contract prescription drug rebates;
( f ) Volume discounts;
( g ) Refunds and other payments or recoveries attributable to litigation with subscribers or providers of health services; and,
( h ) Erroneous benefit payment, overpayment, and duplicate payment recoveries.
[70 FR 31390, June 1, 2005]
14.201-8 Price-related factors. The factors set forth in paragraphs (a) through (e) below may be applicable in evaluation of bids for award and shall be included in the solicitation when applicable. (See 14.201-5(c).) ( a ) Foreseeable costs or delays to the Government resulting from such factors as differences in inspection, locations of supplies, and transportation. If bids are on an f.o.b. origin basis (see 47.303 and 47.305), transportation costs to the designated points shall be considered in determining the lowest cost to the Government.
( b ) Changes made, or requested by the bidder, in any of the provisions of the invitation for bids, if the change does not constitute a ground for rejection under 14.404.
( c ) Advantages or disadvantages to the Government that might result from making more than one award (see 14.201-6(q)). The contracting officer shall assume, for the purpose of making multiple awards, that $500 would be the administrative cost to the Government for issuing and administering each contract awarded under a solicitation. Individual awards shall be for the items or combinations of items that result in the lowest aggregate cost to the Government, including the assumed administrative costs.
( d ) Federal, State, and local taxes (see part 29).
( e ) Origin of supplies, and, if foreign, the application of the Buy American statute or any other prohibition on foreign purchases (see part 25).
[50 FR 1738, Jan. 11, 1985, and 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 55 FR 25527, June 21, 1990; 79 FR 24201, Apr. 29, 2014]
EXHIBIT 32.1
  **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **19 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  In connection with the Annual Report of Statmon Technologies Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Geoffrey Talbot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ **Geoffrey P. Talbot****Geoffrey P. Talbot****Chief Executive Officer****September 13, 2004**
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Sheldon Kleinman, Respondent, v. B. & M. Cleaners *&*Dyers, Inc., Appellant.

In an action to recover the sum of $15,000 allegedly due to the plaintiff under a written contract of employment, in which the defendant corporation asserted a counterclaim of $15,000 based upon the plaintiff’s alleged misappropriation of certain moneys belonging to it, the defendant appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 28, 1962, which: (a) granted plaintiff’s motion and directed partial summary judgment in his favor for $12,500, together with interest thereon and costs; and (b) severed and continued the action as to the $2,500 balance of plaintiff’s claim; and (2) from the judgment of said court entered November 30, 1962'on said order (see 37 Mise 2d 117). Judgment and order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, a triable issue exists as to whether the plaintiff ever agreed to reimburse the defendant with respect to any debts of plaintiff’s former employer which the defendant may have paid. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 15.403 Obtaining certified cost or pricing data.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

Charlotte Aguilar, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 12 C 1655 

 ) 

Capital Management Services, LP, a ) Judge Dow 

Delaware limited partnership, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, pursuant to settlement and F.R.C.P. Rule 41, hereby stipulates to the 

dismissal of her claims against the Defendant, with prejudice. 

Dated: May 2, 2012 

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys 

/s/ David J. Philipps_______

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285) 

Mary E. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06197113) 

 Philipps & Philipps, Ltd. 

9760 S. Roberts Road 

Suite One 

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465 

davephilipps@aol.com 

mephilipps@aol.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-01655 Document #: 12 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:34
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 2, 2012, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal with Prejudice was filed electronically. Electronic notice of this filing will be 

sent to the following party. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. 

Matthew T. Kinst mkinst@smbtrials.com 

Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP 

330 North Wabash Avenue 

Suite 3300 

Chicago, Illinois 60611 

/s/ David J. Philipps__________

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285) 

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd. 

9760 South Roberts Road 

Suite One 

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465 

(708) 974-2900 

(708) 974-2907 (FAX) 

davephilipps@aol.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-01655 Document #: 12 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:35
### §6935. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12414(b), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4981

Section, Pub. L. 113–79, title III, §3208, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 781, related to Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs.
### §1352. Printing of reentry permits and blank forms of manifest and crew lists; sale to public

(a) Reentry permits issued under section 1203 of this title shall be printed on distinctive safety paper and shall be prepared and issued under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General.

(b) The Director of the Government Publishing Office is authorized to print for sale to the public by the Superintendent of Documents, upon prepayment, copies of blank forms of manifests and crew lists and such other forms as may be prescribed and authorized by the Attorney General to be sold pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 9, §282, 66 Stat. 231; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(d), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

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

#### Change of Name

"Director of the Government Publishing Office" substituted for "Public Printer" in subsec. (b) on authority of section 1301(d) of Pub. L. 113–235, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents.

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
### §§601 to 605. Repealed. June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, §403(a)(42), 66 Stat. 280, eff. Dec. 24, 1952

Section 601, acts Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. II, §201, 54 Stat. 1138; July 31, 1946, ch. 708, 60 Stat. 721, related to persons born nationals and citizens. See section 1401 of this title.

Sections 602 to 605, act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. II, §§202–205, 54 Stat. 1139, related to citizens by birth in Puerto Rico, Canal Zone or Panama, nationals but not citizens and children born out of wedlock. See sections 1402, 1403, 1408, 1409(a), (c), and 1407, respectively, of this title.
#### Lois Lipshie, Appellant, v. Lester A. Lazarus, Respondent.

Order, entered February 19, 1963, denying plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s amended counterclaim, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, without prejudice to the commencement of a separate action. *(Stuyvesant Ins. Co.*v. *Matusow,*7 A D 2d 843; *Knapp Engraving Co.*v. *Keystone Photo Engraving Corp.,*1 A D 2d 170.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Ralbin, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
#### 1519.201-71 Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.

The Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) provides guidance and advice, as appropriate, to Agency program and contracts officials on small business programs. The OSDBU Director is the central point of contact for inquiries concerning the small business programs from industry, the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Congress; and shall advise the Administrator and staff of such inquiries as required. The OSDBU Director shall represent the Agency in the negotiations with the other Government agencies on small business programs matters.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          11,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,916,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,445,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,496,431
<PP&E>                                       1,617,002
<DEPRECIATION>                                 894,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,570,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,099,443
<BONDS>                                        459,217
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,858
<OTHER-SE>                                     979,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,570,452
<SALES>                                      6,093,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,093,728
<CGS>                                        4,571,723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,571,723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             114,812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                265,599
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,572
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            235,028
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   235,028
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 533

) (04 CR 531)

RANDY GRIFFIN, )

)

Defendant. )

SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

After this Court had issued its brief March 1 memorandum

opinion and order (“Opinion”) addressing the effort by pro se

prisoner Randy Griffin (“Griffin”) to proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis, its attention was called to the per curiam opinion of

our Court of Appeals in Hains v. Washington, 131 F.3d 1248, 1250

(7th Cir. 1997). Hains dealt with a complaint by a prisoner that

had been dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915A because of its failure

to state a claim, and the court stated in part:

The upshot is that district courts must apply the

PLRA’s fee assessment and collection mechanism when

they dismiss under §1915A. As we said in Newlin, the

filing of a complaint (or appeal) is the act that

creates the obligation to pay fees, and what the judge

does later does not relieve a litigant of this

responsibility. It would be absurd if the very weakest

complaints--those summarily thrown out under

§1915A--were cost-free from the prisoner’s perspective,

while more substantial claims must be paid for. The

district court must assess and collect in Hains’ case,

and we remand for that purpose. 

That mandate has not been altered in the decade and a half

that has elapsed since the Hains decision, and that calls for a

rejection of the discretionary approach that this Court had
suggested in the Opinion. Accordingly an initial payment of

$30.96 must be made by Griffin toward the $455 aggregate in

filing fees, and the Lewisburg USP (“Lewisburg”) trust fund

officer is ordered to collect that amount from Griffin’s trust

fund account and to pay it directly to the Clerk of Court

(“Clerk”):

Office of the Clerk

United States District Court

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago IL 60604

Attention: Fiscal Department

Both that initial payment and all future payments called for in

this memorandum opinion and order shall clearly identify

Griffin’s name and the 12 C 533 and 04 CR 531 case numbers

assigned to this action. To implement these requirements, the

Clerk shall send a copy of this supplement to the Opinion

directly to the Lewisburg trust fund officer.

After such initial payment, the trust fund officer at

Lewisburg (or at any other correctional facility where Griffin

may hereafter be confined) is authorized to collect monthly

payments from Griffin’s trust fund account in an amount equal to

20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the account. 

Monthly payments collected from the trust fund account shall be

forwarded to the Clerk each time the amount in the account

2
exceeds $10 until the full $455 in filing fees is paid.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 6, 2012

3
#### 16.206-1 Description.

A fixed-ceiling-price contract with retroactive price redetermination provides for (a) a fixed ceiling price and (b) retroactive price redetermination within the ceiling after completion of the contract.
#### 1450.102-1 Delegation of authority.

The AS/PMB shall approve all actions under FAR Part 50, except for actions in excess of $55,000, actions which increase the contract price without consideration, and indemnification actions, which shall be approved by the Secretary.
### §940i. Cybersecurity and grid security improvements

#### (a) Definition of cybersecurity and grid security improvements

In this section, the term "cybersecurity and grid security improvements" means investment in the development, expansion, and modernization of rural utility infrastructure that addresses known cybersecurity and grid security risks.

#### (b) Loans and loan guarantees

The Secretary may make or guarantee loans under this subchapter and subchapter I for cybersecurity and grid security improvements.

(May 20, 1936, ch. 432, title III, §319, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6507, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4775.)