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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30401

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL DILLON, also known as Bubba Dillon, also known as Michael 

Dillion,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CR-252-1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Michael Dillon, federal prisoner # 28533-034, was 

convicted of two drug-related offenses and was sentenced to concurrent terms 

of 300 months of imprisonment to be followed by 10 years of supervised release. 

He later filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence 

reduction based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30401 Document: 00514282489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2017
No. 17-30401

2

Guidelines, which the district court denied. After this court remanded for 

clarification of the record, see United States v. Dillon, 676 F. App’x 377 (5th 

Cir. 2017), the district court again denied Dillon’s motion. He now appeals for 

a second time; we affirm.

We review the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). The record 

reflects that the district court implicitly determined that Dillon was eligible for 

a sentence reduction. See United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 

2011). The record also reflects that the district court considered the materials 

that had been presented to it, including Dillon’s arguments that a sentence 

reduction was warranted in light of the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors 

and his positive record of post-conviction conduct. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 

718.

The district court correctly conducted the applicable two-step inquiry. 

Dillon’s disagreement with the court’s denial of his motion fails to demonstrate 

an abuse of discretion. See id. at 717-18.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-30401 Document: 00514282489 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2017
___________ No. 96-1220

___________ Raymond Wahrman, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska John A. Wahrman; Terry Ellinger; * Mary Ellinger, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 1996 Filed: August 22, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM. Raymond Wahrman filed a complaint inthe district court against John Wahrman and Terry and Mary Ellinger. He alleged that, through a partition action in Nebraska state court, the Ellingers had fraudulently obtaine d title to land in which he had an interest, and he sought recovery of the fair value of the property. The district court dismissed the complaint as barred by res judicata. Wahrman appeals.

We mu st consider the issue of the district court's subject matte r jurisdiction if the record suggests it is lacking. Yeldell v. Tutt , 913 F.2d 533, 537 (8th Cir. 1990). We observe that the complaint did no t allege facts showing diversity jurisdiction, or identify a statutory o r constitutional basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (pleading which sets forth claim fo r relief shall contain short

### -2-

plain statement of grounds for court's jurisdiction); Luecke v. Schnucks Markets, Inc. , 85 F.3d 356, 358 (8th Cir. 1996) (federal question generall y must appear on face of complaint); Sanders v. Cl emco Indus. , 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) (pleadings must state citizenship of parties t o establish diversity). Accordingly, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand with directions to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subjec t matter jurisdiction.
A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: ORDER ADOPTING RULES 1951 - 1959 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE : : : : : : : NO. 626 CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M**  **AN D**  **NOW**, this 29th day of June , 2015, u pon the recommendation of the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee , the proposal having been published for public comment in the Pennsylvania Bulletin , 45 Pa.B. 1607 (April 4, 2015) : **IT IS**  **ORDERED** pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rules 1951 - 1959 of the Pennsylvania Rul es of Civil Procedure are amended in the attached form. This **ORDER** shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective July 1, 2015

.
#### 1846.672 Preparing DD Forms 250 and 250c.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         324,981
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,461,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,455,816
<PP&E>                                     114,331,942
<DEPRECIATION>                              66,031,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,076,104
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,724,640
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,780,040
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,076,104
<SALES>                                      3,500,460
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,577,445
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,220,877
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             279,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (922,966)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (280,960)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (642,006)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (642,006)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $(.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $(.05)>
        


</TABLE>
{00054717.DOC; v. 1}

3771

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DOCTOR JOHN DOE, et al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 11-cv-07814

)

)

GOOGLE, INC., ) Honorable Virginia M. Kendall 

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF FILING

TO: All Counsel of Record 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 4, 2011, we filed Plaintiffs’ Notice of 

Dismissal with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, a copy of which is 

attached and herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ David A. Novoselsky 

David A. Novoselsky (ARDC #02069881)

Edward J. Stawicki (ARDC #6287471)

NOVOSELSKY LAW OFFICES

120 North LaSalle, Suite 1400

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 346-8930

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, David A. Novoselsky, an attorney, hereby certify that I served a copy of the 

foregoing Notice of Filing and documents referred to therein to all parties of record, 

electronically on November 4, 2011, pursuant to ECF as to Filing Users and in compliance 

with LR 5.5 as to any party who is not a Filing User or represented by a Filing User.

By: /s/ David A. Novoselsky

Case: 1:11-cv-07814 Document #: 6-1 Filed: 11/04/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:27
**U.S. Department of Education**

**Negotiated Rulemaking**

**1990 K St., NW, 8th Floor Conference Center**

**Washington, D.C.**

**Team III – Accreditation**

**April 21 & 22, 2009, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm**

**April 23, 2009, 9:00 am – 12:00 pm**

**Agenda***

**Welcome**

**Review, Revise, and Approve Meeting One Summary**

**Review Draft Regulatory Text:**

1. Definitions of Distance Education and Correspondence Education 

2. Accreditation Team Members 

3. Student Achievement Standard

4. Operating Procedures – Transfer of Credit

5. Operating Procedures – Teach-out Plan Approval

6. Definition of Recognition

7. &  8. Demonstration of Compliance Within 12 Months and Recognition When Not Fully Compliant / Recognition Procedures – Subparts C & D

9. Direct Assessment Program Definition

10. Distance Education and Correspondence Education

11. & 12.  Monitoring of Institutions and Programs Throughout Period/ Operating Procedures – Growth Monitoring

13. Substantive Change

14. Record Keeping and Confidentiality

15. Due Process and Appeals

16. Operating Procedures – Summary of Agency Actions

**Next Steps**

Draft Regulatory Text

Agenda for Meeting Three: May 18-20, 2009

Meeting Summary

Other

*  Time will be made available for public comment during the meeting.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.37

[NSP LOGO]             NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY

                       414 NICOLLET MALL                       ROGER D. SANDEEN
                       MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401-1993       VICE PRESIDENT
                       TELEPHONE (612) 330-5907                AND CONTROLLER





April 4, 1991



Mr. Roland J. Jensen, President
NRG Group, Inc
1221 Nicollet Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403


Subject:  Federal and State Income Tax Sharing Agreement Between Northern
          States Power Company (NSP) and NRG Group, Inc.



Dear Mr. Jensen,

To formalize the system  of determining the income tax liability attributable to
each corporation that joins in filing consolidated Federal and State income tax
returns with NSP the following agreement is proposed.

The subsidiaries that comprise NRG Group, Inc shall pay to NSP the amount of
Federal and State income tax computed as if the NRG Group had actually filed
separate Federal and separate State tax returns. Payments shall be made on or
about the time that estimate payments or income tax returns are due. If the NRG
Group incurs tax losses, NSP shall reimburse NRG to the extent there is a tax
benefit from the consolidated returns.

NRG Group shall join in an election to this effect in the 1991 tax returns.



Sincerely,



/s/ Roger D. Sandeen
Roger D. Sandeen



/s/ Roland J Jensen
-------------------------
Approved
Roland J Jensen
Appeal No. 74-100.

#### Jacento Rosa *et ux. v.*Margaret Kilduff *et al.*

*Hodosh, Spinella, Hodosh & Angelone, James D. Levitt,*for plaintiffs-appellees. *John Oliveira,*defendant-appellant, pro se.

Pro se motion of appellant, John Oliveira, to assign is granted. The matter is assigned to the calendar for the first Monday in April, 1976, for oral argument.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 6095** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
DEVIN NEIL GUNDRY, a/k/a “Neil” ,
Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 4:09

- cr
- 00063

- RBS

- TEM

- 7 )

Submitted : May 28, 2015 Decided: June 5, 2015

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Devin Neil Gundry, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys, Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assi stant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Devin Gundry appeals the dist rict court’s order s denying

his motion for reduction of sentence and his motion for

reconsideration. W e find no abuse of direction. See United

States v. Mann , 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s denial of relie f. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the material before this court and
argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 3883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01030]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, January 23, 2013, 10:00 a.m.--11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered

    Briefing Matters: Sections 1112/1118 Requirements for Third Party 
Conformity Assessment Bodies--Draft Final Rule
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: January 15, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01030 Filed 1-15-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
#### Michael F. Marron, Appellant, v. William F. Fitzpatrick, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: There were issues of fact which should have been submitted to the jury for determination. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Trial Term dismissing the complaint on motion made at close of plaintiff’s ease and renewed at close of all of the evidence, in an automobile negligence action.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of Reliability Incorporated (the "Issuer") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Periodic Report"):





|1. | 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Issuer.





|/s/ Larry Edwards
Larry Edwards
Chief Executive Officer
August 5, 2003 | /s/ Carl V. Schmidt
Carl V. Schmidt
Chief Financial Officer
August 5, 2003
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



26
Faulk, Scott (OST) From: Faulk, Scott (OST) Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 10:05 AM To: Cc: 'john.binder@alaska.gov'; Alaska DOT, Linda Bustamante (Linda.bustamante@alaska.gov); rich.sewell@alaska.gov 'AfognakWildernesslodge@yahoo.com'; 'Wes Osowski'; Island Air, Bob Stanford; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) Subject: Attachments: Greetings All: Update on Essential Air Service at Kodiak 11 Island Air.pdf; Servant Air.pdf

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Alitak, Amook Bay, Kitoi Bay, Moser Bay, Olga Bay, Port Bailey, Port Williams, Seal Bay, Uganik, West Point, and ZacharBay, Alaska, (Kodiak II),as well as give you an opportunity to offerany comments for the formal record before we submit a recommendationto the Assistant Secretary for Aviationand International Affairs. As you may know, the Department issued Order 2015-3-8, on March 12, 2015, requesting proposals from aircarriers interested in providing EAS at the Kodiak 11, for a newterm beginningNovember 1, 2015. In response to the Department'srequest, Redemption, Inc. d/b/a Island Air Service and ServantAir, Inc. submitted proposals for consideration. Ihave attached those proposalsto this email and expectthem to be uploaded onwww.regulations.gov sometime this afternoon. Irequest that youreviewthe proposals and submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no later than May 18.2015. Please send yourcommentsdirectly to me via e-mail at scott.faulk@dot.gov. Also, please forward this to all relevant parties that I have not included on the distribution list. Ifyou have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards, Scott Faulk U.S. Department ofTransportation EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 1200NewJersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 202-366:.9967

1 ,...

# ... L


## -·-



## u
v.J
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Reba Kurlan, as Executrix of Norma Olden, Deceased, Respondent, v. Conover Mast Publications, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board *(Matter of Schechter*v. *State Ins. Fund,*6 N Y 2d 506). Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson and Taylor, JJ., concur; Herlihy J., dissents and votes to reverse and dismiss the claim, in the following memorandum: The record does not sustain the finding of the board that decedent’s death was due to “ unusual, involved physical exertion and emotional and mental stress constituting an undue strain on decedent’s heart and hastened death ”. The record demonstrates that death was due to ordinary wear and tear of life and that there was no accident as determined “by the common-sense viewpoint of the average man.” *(Matter of Masse*v. *Robinson Co.,*301 N. Y. 34, 37).
EXHIBIT 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





We have issued our report dated
September 25, 2002, accompanying the financial statements included in the Amended Annual Report of Venture Catalyst Incorporated on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended June 30, 2002. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
report in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-19743, effective January 14, 1997, 333-19745, effective January 14, 1997, 333-19747, effective January 14, 1997, 333-44179, effective January 13, 1998, 333-82169, effective
July 2, 1999, 333-47152, effective October 2, 2000 and 333-55434, effective February 12, 2001).





/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP





Irvine, California


September 25, 2002
#### John Sanchez, Respondent, v Maryland Casualty Company, Respondent, and Criterion Insurance Co., Appellant.

— In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the Criterion Insurance Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 23, 1977, which, after a hearing, determined that there was a valid policy of insurance issued by Criterion to its insured at the time of the accident and granted the application to stay arbitration. Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent Maryland Casualty Company payable by Criterion. On this record, appellant has not met its burden of demonstrating that its policy of insurance had been canceled prior to the date of the accident. More than a bare assertion in a self-serving letter is required to rebut the presumption of continuance. We further note that since appellant filed no answer to the petition, the allegations therein are deemed uncontroverted (see CPLR 402). Mollen, P. J., Suozzi, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Consolidated Capital Properties III (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March 25, 2008   
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March 25, 2008   





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 482 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:27430
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 482 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:27431
19.1508 Contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219-29, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, Economically Disadvantaged Women-owned Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions that are set aside or awarded on a sole-source basis to, EDWOSB concerns under 19.1505(b) or 19.1506(a). This includes multiple-award contracts when orders may be set aside for EDWOSB concerns as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) or when orders may be issued directly to one EDWOSB contractor in accordance with 19.504(c)(1)(ii).
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219-30, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns Eligible Under the Women-Owned Small Business Program, in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions that are set aside or awarded on a sole-source basis to WOSB concerns under 19.1505(c) or 19.1506(b). This includes multiple-award contracts when orders may be set aside for WOSB concerns eligible under the WOSB Program as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) or when orders may be issued directly to one WOSB contractor in accordance with 19.504(c)(1)(ii).
( c ) For use of clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, see the prescription at 19.507(e).
( d ) For use of clause 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule, see the prescription at 19.507(h).
[86 FR 44243, Aug. 11, 2021]