alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 155 East Tropicana,LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company and 155 East Tropicana Finance Corp., aNevada corporation (collectively, the “Company”) for the three months ended June 30,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Deborah J. Pierce, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                 The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                 The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Deborah J. Pierce   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Deborah  J. Pierce,      |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer |   |
| August 14,  2009    |   |

 

 

Theforegoing certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and are not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 18 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with GM on May 9, 2011 FROM: Don Kopinski TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on May 9 , 2011 b etween GM and EPA staff. The following people attended : GM : Barbara Kiss EPA: Angela Cullen, Chuck Moulis, By ron Bunker, Cle Jackson, Don Kopinski The discussion focused on gasoline engine feasibility for the HD GHG rule .
#### § 4279.224 Minimum retention.

The Lender is required to hold a minimum of 7.5 percent of the total loan amount. The amount required to be held must be of the unguaranteed portion of the loan and cannot be Participated to another Person. The Agency may reduce the minimum retention below 7.5 percent on a case by case basis when the Lender establishes to the Secretary's satisfaction that reduction of the minimum retention percentage is to meet compliance with the Lender's regulatory authority. The Lender must retain interest in the Collateral, and retain the servicing responsibilities for the guaranteed loan.
3.403 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all contracts. Statutory requirements for negotiated contracts are, as a

matter of policy, extended to sealed bid contracts.

Parent topic: Subpart 3.4 - Contingent Fees
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30048

Summary Calendar

 

CARL J. BRIGGS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Through DOC, 

as Supervising Agency for Hunt

Correctional Center,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-2575-B-1

- - - - - - - - - -

July 1, 1996

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Carl J. Briggs appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment, dismissing his claim filed pursuant to the

Americans with Disability Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 12101-117. Briggs

contends that the ability to restrain inmates is not an essential

function of a corrections officer and that appellee failed to

make a reasonable accommodation. We have reviewed the record and
No. 96-30048

- 2 -

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the magistrate judge. See Briggs v. State of

Louisiana, No. 94-CV-2575-B-1 (M.D. La. Sept. 6, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
Rule 1063. Commencement of Action.

The action shall be commenced by filing a complaint with the prothonotary.

[(1) a complaint, or 

(2) an agreement for an amicable action.]

Rule 1093. Commencement of Action.

An action may be commenced by filing a complaint with the prothonotary.

[(1) a complaint, or 

 (2) an agreement for an amicable action.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule for Adelphia Communications Corp. for the nine months
ended December 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000796486
<NAME> ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         398,644
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,911<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,236,814<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,294,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      3,527,452
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           421
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,021,746)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,294,457
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               507,155
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  416,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             191,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (117,595)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,802)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (110,793)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,337)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (115,130)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (3.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.75)
<FN>
<F1>Receivables net of Allowance
<F2>PP&E net of Depreciation
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS


ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Report") of ANTs software inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the year ended December 31, 2010:





1. Fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.





Date:  March 31, 2011
/s/ David A. Buckel

David A. Buckel, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
~7/22/2015 15:11 4252271~~7 

Jeffrey M. Harper 

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Avenue Southwest 

Renton. Washington 98057 

T (425) 227-2161 

F (425) 227·1007 

ANM7 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060047 

DMS No. F AA-2012-0872 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Jn accordance with 14 C.P.R.§ 13.233(a), Complainant hereby submits Notice of his 

intent to appeal the Initial Decision of Administrative Lsw Judge Richard C. Goodwin, 

served July 16,2015. 

Respectfully submitted this 22"" day ofJuly, 2015. 

Digitally s19nod by 

JEFFREY M HARPER 

5 DN: c~US, o~U.S. 

d /1. dJ;.. Go'"o'-~'"l ou·ANM 

.~,iM.-1:':!'artJd"'· .... o~:AN~~~JEFFREY M 

:'FAA Attorney . HARPER 

Date: 201 5.07,;!2 14:28:30 

-07'00' 

PAGE 02/05 
07/22/2015 15:11 _4252271007 ANM7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served via facsimile, 

electronic mail and Certified Mail - Return Receipt R,equ.ested this date, to the following: 

Th.e Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell -31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

F (202) 366-7536 

E Richard.goodwin@dot.gov 

Todd Emerson, Esq. Sky West Airlines, lnc. 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84790 

F (435) 634-3505 

E temerson@skywest.com 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served via facsimile, and 

Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Federal Aviation Adrn.inisrration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

F (202) 267-1293 

Dated this 22nd day afJuly, 2015. 

Notiee of Appeal 

In th~ Matter of $kyWestAit11nes, lnc. 

Dana Stephenson Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425) 227-2007 

FAA Case No. 20UNM060047, DMS No. FAA·2012·0872 

Page 2 of 2 

Jeffrey M. Harper, FAA Attornsy 

T (425) 227·2161 

F (425) 227-1007 

PAGE 03/05
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 discretionary 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

AUG 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 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, 1966-67 (2018) (record as a 

whole, including what was considered in the original sentencing proceedings, was 

sufficient to demonstrate consideration of the parties’ arguments and a reasoned 

basis for deciding the section 3582(c)(2) motion). The district court did not abuse 

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

circumstances. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 

2013).

AFFIRMED.
Mr. Nick Parsons

Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/CCGEPA Denver (Region 8) In Re Docket ID: EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505

Dear Mr. Parsons:

As a Family Doctor in Utah, I am obligated to write that I have significant concern over the increased drilling in the Colorado Plateau.

The oil and gas development in the Colorado Plateau is detrimental to regional air quality and on children's health. Smog forming compounds and othe r air toxics are released at virtually every phase of oil and gas drilling. We have an increasing rate of diagnosis of asthma in Utah as well as clear spike s in admissions for asthma attacks in our kids when air quality is poor. The overall quality of life is significantly impacted along the Wasatch front and Utah, and all factors must be addressed.

According to data compiled by Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action and presented in 2007 to the Western Governors Association, a single EnCana natural gas processing plant in Rio Blanco County has the potential to release nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxi de and volatile organic compounds equal to the emissions from 43,000 cars! Oil and gas drilling i n the Rocky Mountain region is expected to release 251,948 tons of nitrogen oxides annually by 2018, a s much as over 13 million cars.

13 million cars.

We know that these emissions directly impact our ai r quality and I ask you to support health and revie w the potential impacts of leases on drilling. This i s not a short-term problem, the is a long-term commitment to our health and children's health. You can do your part to make HEALTH a #1 concern as I do.

Sarah Woolsey, MD

e Docket ID: EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505 Sarah Woolsey

to: Nick Parsons 08/02/2010 10:34 AM Show Details Page 1 of 1

8/9/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Set tings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web4050.h

...
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*May 22, 2006*

[Cite as *05/22/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2481.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2005-2385.

#### State v. Copeland.

Butler App. No. CA2003-12-320, 2005-Ohio-5899. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On December 10, 2005, appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant *1475has neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IY(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals’ order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 111(6).
Case 1:02-cr-00023-MP   Document 28   Filed 08/08/07   Page 1 of 1
Operating expenses: Capital expenses:

Maximum Month (2011-2013) Pump Upgrade (2 pumps, one for each scrubber system)

12.72 TPD SO2 Loading ~ $ 200,000.00

11.448 =90% removal requirement

22896 =lbs NaoH per lb SO2 to be removed / day*

*(2013 Lundberg estimate of 1 lb NaOH per lb of SO2 removal)

$ 5,472.14 /day @ $ 0.24 /lb NaOH (5-Year Avg NaOH pricing)

$ 1,942,611.12 /year

Conversion:

2.04 lb NaOH / gallon of 20% solution

Waste water treatment cost

 3,984,353 gallons / year

$ 0.22 /k gallon (2014 budget)

$ 856.64 /year

Raw water treatment cost

 3,984,353 gallons / year

$ 270.17 /MMGal (2014 budget)

$ 1,076.45 /year

Energy cost

25 hp/pump

50 hp (2 pumps)

37.3 kW (1hp = 0.746kW)

$ 15,889.80 /year @ 0.05 $/kWh (Arkansas Industrial Energy Clearinghouse)

$ 1,960,434.01 /year additional cost for 90% removal average

The NaOH pricing is based on a 5-year average for Ashdown

Wastewater and raw water costs are based on estimated additional gallons from the NaOH and 2014 budget costs.

The energy costs are an estimate assuming two new ~50 gpm pumps (Engineering estimated capital expense to be approximately

$200,000 for 2 pumps, piping and electrical).
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

GAINESVILLE DIVISION 

JULIE ANN SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJDUICE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff, 

JULIE ANN SMITH, and Defendant, HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., through their 

respective counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, that the abovecaptioned case be dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs and 

attorneys’ fees. 

DATED: June 17, 2021

/s/ Alexander J. Taylor 

Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1013947 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 

2500 S. Highland Ave., Ste. 200 

Lombard, Illinois 60148 

Phone: (630) 575-8180 

Fax: (630) 575-8188 

mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Charles J. McHale 

Charles J. McHale, Esq. 

FBN: 0026555 

GOLDEN SCAZ GAGAIN, PLLC

201 North Armenia Avenue 

Tampa, Florida 33609-2303 

Phone: (813) 251-5500 

Direct: (813) 251-3688 

Fax: (813) 251-3675 

cmchale@gsgfirm.com 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 19 Filed 06/17/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that I today caused a copy of the foregoing document to be 

electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will be 

sent to all attorneys of record. 

 

 /s/ Alexander J. Taylor 

Alexander J. Taylor 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 19 Filed 06/17/21 Page 2 of 2
# 4.303 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.204-4, *Printed or Copied Double-Sided* on Recycled Paper, in *solicitations* and contracts that exceed the *simplified acquisition threshold*.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 4.3 - Paper Documents
FLN (Rev. 3/2007) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

3:99cr10LAC - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. DINO M. GENTILE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs

DINO M. GENTILE

Case No.3:99cr10LAC

ORDER

Your document, OFFICIAL, ACTUAL, CONSTRUCTIVE AND EXPRESS NOTICE OF

UNCLEAN HANDS AND FRAUD, TO ANY AND ALL AGENTS, OFFICERS,

EMPLOYEES AND ATTORNEYS OF LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

(to the attention of Santa Barbara County Clerk and Recorder)

 was referred to the undersigned with the following deficiencies:

Your document is not properly captioned for this court. Every paper you

file must have the name of this court, the case style, the case number and

the title of your pleading. The body of your pleading should state the

nature of your request and what you want the court to do for you.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall return the document to the

filing party.

DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 2008.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:99-cr-00010-LC-MD Document 122 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 3570.275 Grant cancellation or major changes.

Any change in the scope of the Project, budget adjustments of more than 10 percent of the total budget, and any other significant change in the Project must be in compliance with 2 CFR 200.308 and 200.339. The changes must be requested in writing and approved by the Agency in writing. Any change not approved may be cause for termination of the grant.
#### Margaret A. Berg, an Infant, by Robert Berg, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Town of Huntington, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, in favor of defendant town, entered February 8, 1968 upon a dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiffs’ case. The action was discontinued as against defendant county. Judgment affirmed, without costs. The infant plaintiff was injured when an automobile in which she was a passenger, driven by her mother, struck a tree after rounding a curve. The tree was about three feet from the edge of the paved portion of the road. The testimony of plaintiffs’ expert witness established that the road was safe at the speed at which the car was being driven; and the negligence of the mother in the operation of the vehicle was conceded. Although the facts must be viewed most favorably to plaintiffs *(Philpot*v. *Brooklyn Nat. League Baseball Club,*303 N. Y. 116, 119), we are of the opinion that they nevertheless demonstrate that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the manner in which the automobile was being operated; and the dismissal of the complaint was therefore proper *(Darling*v. *State of New York,*16 N Y 2d 907; *Ellis*v. *State of New York,*16 A D 2d 727, affd. 12 N Y 2d 770; *Kinne*v. *State of New York,*8 A D 2d 903, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1068). We also find no grounds for reversal in the trial court’s rulings on the admission of evidence. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. EDGAR WILSANDER ARGUETA, a/k/a Jonathan E. Gutierrez, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00349-REP-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2009 Decided: December 15, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Interim United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Edgar Wilsander Argueta pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after previously having been deported following an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced him to forty-eight months of imprisonment. Argueta appeals, alleging that the district court’s sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we

affirm. Prior to sentencing the district court advised the parties it was considering an upward variance because of the defendant’s repeated violation of immigration laws and violent criminal activity. At the sentencing hearing, the court adopted the finding in the presentence report that Argueta’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 30-37 months. Neither party objected to this finding. After considering this range, the factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009), and the parties’ arguments, the c ourt imposed a forty-eight-month sentence. The court provided specific reasons for imposing a sentence above the advisory range. Under these circumstances, we find the sentence was

reasonable. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (providing standard). In particular, we find no procedural or substantive error, in light of how the court calculated

23 Argueta’s sentence and explained its reasons therefor. United States v. Pauley , 511 F.3d 468, 473-76 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED