alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Hamilton.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Hamilton,*109 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2006-Ohio-2040.]

(No. 2006-0247

Submitted March 20, 2006

Decided March 27, 2006.)

{¶ 1} This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in accordance with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F).

{¶ 2} On February 3, 2006, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of Kentucky entered December 22, 2005, in *Curtis J. Hamilton III v. Kentucky Bar Association,*in case No. 2004-SC-000105-KB, 180 S.W.3d 470, publicly reprimanding respondent and ordering him to complete eight hours of courses in ethics, including four hours dealing with proper handling and administration of funds in trust accounts. On February 17, 2006, this court ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state. Respondent filed no response to the show cause order. This cause was considered by the court and on consideration thereof,

{¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), respondent, Curtis J. Hamilton III, Attorney Registration No. 0065665, last known business address in Henderson, Kentucky, be publicly reprimanded. It is further ordered that respondent complete eight hours of courses in ethics, including four hours dealing with proper handling and administration of funds in trust accounts. It is further ordered that respondent file with this court, within one year of the date of this order, proof of attendance at these courses.

{¶ 4} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, by the court that, within 90 days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been awarded against the respondent by the Clients’ Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after the date of this order, the Clients’ Security Fund awards any amount against the respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), the respondent shall *1202reimburse that amount to the Clients’ Security Fund within 90 days of the notice of such award.

{¶ 5} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, until such time as respondent fully complies with this order, respondent shall keep the Clerk and the Disciplinary Counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may receive communications.

{¶ 6} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration Section.

{¶ 7} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2226 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of entries of certain 

manufacturing equipment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2006 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of entries 

of certain manufacturing equipment. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT EN4 TERED ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 21, 1998, AND 

5 BEFORE JULY 10, 1999. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 514 and 

7 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520) 

8 or any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after 

9 the receipt of the request described in subsection (b), any 

10 article— 
2 

•S 2226 IS

1 (1) that was entered, or withdrawn from ware2 house for consumption— 

3 (A) on or after October 21, 1998; and 

4 (B) before July 10, 1999; and 

5 (2) with respect to which heading 9902.84.81, 

6 9902.84.83, 9902.84.85, 9902.84.87 (as in effect on 

7 December 31, 2001), 9902.84.89, or 9902.84.91 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

9 States would have applied if such article had been 

10 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consump11 tion, on December 31, 2001, 

12 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if heading 

13 9902.84.81, 9902.84.83, 9902.84.85, 9902.84.87 (as in 

14 effect on December 31, 2001), 9902.84.89, or 9902.84.91, 

15 whichever is applicable, applied to such entry or with16 drawal, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall refund 

17 any excess duty paid with respect to such entry. 

18 (b) REQUESTS.—Liquidation or reliquidation may be 

19 made under subsection (a) with respect to any entry only 

20 if a request therefor is filed with the Bureau of Customs 

21 and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland 

22 Security, not later than 180 days after the date of the 

23 enactment of this Act, that contains sufficient information 

24 to enable the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection— 

25 (1) to locate the entry; or 
3 

•S 2226 IS

1 (2) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be lo2 cated. 

Æ
#### § 29.30 Package.

A hogshead, tierce, case, bale, or other securely enclosed parcel or bundle.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00679-CV

Monica Mason, Appellant

v.

John Mason, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-04-006244, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Monica Mason has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss her appeal. We grant the

motion and dismiss this appeal.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: September 24, 2007
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

MARCO ANTHONY GOMEZ, Jr., a.k.a. Silky,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 10224

D.C. No. 2:07

- cr

- 00248

- WBS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018 **

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Marco Anthony Gomez, Jr. appeals from the district court’s order denying

his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review disc retionary denials of sentence

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

- 3. Because we affirm the district court’s denial of Gomez’s motion, we need not reach his reassignment argument.

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

# FILED

AU G 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 10224

reduction motions for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Chaney , 581 F.3d

1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm

.

The parties agree that Gomez is statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction

under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines

. Gomez argues that the

district court erred by failing to consider adequately the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors and to explain sufficiently its discretionary decision not to

reduce his sentence

. The judge who originally sentenced Gomez after holding an

evidentiary hearing and issuing detailed findings regarding Gomez’s role in the

offense

, was the same judge who denied his section 3582(c)(2) motion. Although

the judge’s explanation was brief, in this instance we conclude it was sufficient

.

See Chavez

- Meza v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 1959, 196 6

- 6 7 (2018) ( record as a

whole , including what was considered in the o riginal sentencing proceedings, was

sufficient to demonstrate consideration of the par ties’ arguments and a reasoned

basis for deciding the section 3582(c)(2) motion)

. T he district court did not abuse

its discretion in light of the section 3553(a) factors and th e totality of the

circumstances. S

ee United States v. Dun n , 728 F.3d 1151, 115 9

- 60 (9th Cir.

2013).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 29.1114 Rule 8.

A lot of tobacco meets the specifications of a grade when it is not lower in any degree of any element of quality than the minimum specifications of such grade.
§ 3550.67 Repayment period. Loans will be scheduled for repayment over a period that does not exceed the expected useful life of the property as a dwelling. The loan repayment period will not exceed: ( a ) Thirty-three years in all cases except as noted in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
( b ) Thirty-eight years: ( 1 ) For initial loans, or subsequent loans made in conjunction with an assumption, if the applicant's adjusted income does not exceed 60 percent of the area adjusted median income and the longer term is necessary to show repayment ability.
( 2 ) For subsequent loans not made in conjunction with an assumption if the applicant's initial loan was for a period of 38 years, the applicant's adjusted income at the time the subsequent loan is approved does not exceed 60 percent of area adjusted median income, and the longer terms is necessary to show repayment ability.
( c ) Ten years for loans not exceeding an amount determined by the Agency based on factors such as the performance of unsecured loans in the Agency's portfolio and the Agency's budgetary needs, but not to exceed eight percent of the national average area loan limit.
( d ) Thirty years for manufactured homes.
[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 87 FR 6772, Feb. 7, 2022]
98-1628.

#### State v. Lowther.

Franklin App. No. 97APA09-1274. *Sua sponte,*cause consolidated with 98-1859, *supra,*and held for the decision in 97-1985, *State v. Cook,*Allen App. No. 1-97-21; briefing schedule stayed.
EXHIBIT 32 

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), James E. Keenan, as Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Abby Miller, as Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operations of the Company. 

 

|                             |                                       |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                        |                                  |
| /s/ James E. Keenan

  |
| Name:                       | James E. Keenan                       |
| Title:                      | Interim Chief Executive Officer       |
| Date:                       | May 2, 2022                           |
|                        |
| /s/ Abby Miller

      |
| Name:                       | Abby Miller                           |
| Title:                      | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| Date:                       | May 2, 2022                           |
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T22:09:36-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
Exhibit 32.1
 
 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 Keyuan Petrochemiclas, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Chunfeng Tao, 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)T he information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.
 
 
 Date:  September 27, 2010
 
 /s/ Chunfeng Tao
 Chunfeng Tao
 Chief Executive Officer & Chairman
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent Iacovelli, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, imposed January 16, 1980, upon his adjudication as a youthful offender, after his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate prison term with a maximum of four years. Sentence reversed, on the law, and matter remanded to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for resentencing. As the People concede, the probation report inaccurately reported defendant’s prior legal history. It cannot be stated that this misinformation did not affect the sentencing court’s judgment as to what sentence to impose. Accordingly, an accurate probation report must be prepared before a proper sentence may be imposed. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Hargett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### Leander LaChance, defendant in error, v. Charles Dickinson, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 37,285.

Opinion filed November 27, 1934.

Fred W. Story, for plaintiff in error. Wm. H. Haight and Nat T. Burfeind, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
### The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, United States District 1 

### Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. ___________ No. 96-1255

___________ Diane Lindgren, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Woodbury County; * Northern District of Iowa. * Appellant, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Robert B. Carson, Jr., * * Defendant. *

___________ Submitted: April 29, 1996 Filed: May 7, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. WoodburyCounty appeals the district court's award of trial-level 1 attorney's fees to Diane Lindgren in her action under Title VII of th e Civil Rig hts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq . Having carefull y reviewed the record a nd the parties' briefs, we conclude that no error of law o r fact appears and that an opinion would lack precedential value . Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We note that any request fo r appellate-level attorneys' fees must be made in a separate motion within fourte endays after entry of this court's judgment. See 8th Cir. R . 47C(a).

### -2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32 

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), James E. Keenan, as Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael Pungello, as Interim Chief Financial Officer and Interim Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operations of the Company. 

 

|                              |                                                       |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                  |
| /s/ James E. Keenan

   |
| Name:                        | James E. Keenan                                       |
| Title:                       | Interim Chief Executive Officer                       |
| Date:                        | October 31, 2018                                      |
|                         |
| /s/ Michael Pungello

  |
| Name:                        | Michael Pungello                                      |
| Title:                       | Interim Chief Financial Officer and Interim Treasurer |
| Date:                        | October 31, 2018                                      |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Brown, Appellant.

— Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered December 4, 1978, convicting defendant of burglary in the third degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of two to four years, held in abeyance, counsel’s motion to be relieved denied, with leave to renew, and counsel directed to serve and file a supplemental brief in compliance with guidelines indicated in *People v Gonzalez*(47 NY2d 606) and *People v Saunders*(52 AD2d 833), within 30 days from the date of the order entered hereon. Respondent shall serve and file its brief, if any, within 10 days after service of such supplemental brief. Counsel, in his perfunctory brief, fails completely to deal with defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and the denial thereof. Nor does he refer to the *Sandoval*and *Huntley*hearings alluded to at the time of sentencing. "Our own review of the record reveals at least one arguable issue that should have been brought to our attention, viz., the denial of defendant’s application to withdraw his guilty plea” *(People v Myrick,*69 AD2d 804). Counsel is to review the record and comply with the directions above indicated. Should counsel, upon such further review of the matter, still be of the view that no nonfrivolous issues exist, he may, *upon a proper showing,*renew his motion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATIONS*





I, Jeff K. Storey, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-K of Level 3 Communications, Inc.; and





2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;











Date: March 20, 2015


/s/ Jeff K. StoreyJeff K. StoreyChief Executive Officer








* Provide a separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the registrant. See Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wally Williams and Phillip Bass, Appellants.

Appeal by defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, both rendered October 2, 1978, convicting each defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences. Judgments affirmed. Although defendant Wally Williams’ arrest was not supported by probable cause, the hearing court’s error in failing to suppress the $350 seized by the police from Williams’ person as a fruit of that illegal arrest was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the identification testimony (see *People v Almestica,*42 NY2d 222). The other contentions raised by defendants have been considered and found to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.2





Certification of Principal
Financial Officer


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 SRKP 3, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, 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 operations of the Company.





/s/ Anthony C.
  PintsopoulosAnthony
      C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
      Financial OfficerOctober
      23, 2009
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:94cr4045-WS

BRADY LAVICK ADAMS,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 165)

docketed February 1, 2010. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

"Motion Requesting DNA Testing" (doc. 159) be denied. The defendant has filed

objections (doc. 166) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the defendant’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 165) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.
Page 2 of 2

Case No 4:94cr4045-WS

2. The defendant’s "Motion Requesting DNA Testing" (doc. 159) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of March , 2010.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
§ 322.34 Inspection; refusal of entry. ( a ) You must present shipments of restricted articles to the inspector at the port of entry in the United States. Shipments of restricted articles must remain at the port of entry until released by the inspector.
( b ) The inspector at the port will confirm that all shipments of restricted articles have proper documentation (see § 322.30) and that you provided notice of arrival for all shipments of restricted articles (see § 322.32).
( c ) If, upon inspection, any shipment fails to meet the requirements of this part, that shipment will be refused entry into the United States. In accordance with § 322.2(c), the inspector will offer you, or in your absence the shipper, the opportunity to immediately export any refused shipments, or confiscate and destroy the refused shipments.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0207)