alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 17, 2005

Decided April 19, 2005

Before

Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

Nos. 03-3789 & 03-3752

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Cross-Appellant, 

v.

BRIAN KELLER, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

Cross-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 02 CR 1086

James B. Moran, Judge. 

ORDER

This matter comes before us upon remand from the Supreme Court of the

United States for reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). Brian Keller was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Mr. Keller appealed his conviction. The Government

cross-appealed the district court’s grant of a downward departure to Mr. Keller’s

sentence under § 5K2.12 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We affirmed

Mr. Keller’s conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. On

January 25, 2005, the Supreme Court granted Mr. Keller’s petition for a writ of

certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment and remanded the case to us for further

consideration in light of Booker.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
Nos. 03-3789 & 03-3752 Page 2

Both parties now request that Mr. Keller’s sentence be vacated and remanded

for resentencing. We believe that such a course of action is appropriate. Accordingly,

we affirm Mr. Keller’s conviction, vacate his sentence due to the district court’s

erroneous grant of a downward departure, see United States v. Keller, 376 F.3d 713,

717-20 (7th Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, 125 S. Ct. 1061 (2005), and remand

to the district court for resentencing consistent with this order and the Supreme

Court’s decision in Booker. 

IT IS SO ORDERED
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2871 

To suspend temporarily the duty on MKH 6561 Isocyanate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2006 

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

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on MKH 6561 Isocyanate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MKH 6561 ISOCYANATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.11.13 2-(Carbomethoxy) 

benzenesulfonyl isocyanate 

(CAS No. 74222–95–0) 

(provided for in subheading 

2930.90.29) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 2871 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Centenary International Corporation
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hector
      A. Patron Costas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Hector A. Patron Costas


________________________________


Hector
      A.
      Patron Costas


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      11, 2006





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 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing
      certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to
      section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and are not being
      filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure
      document.
NO: 01-14-00156-CR

JAVIER GALINDO PACHECO § IN THE FIRST 

V. § COURT OF APPEALS 

STATE OF TEXAS § HOUSTON, TEXAS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR 

APPELLANT AND ORDER GRANTING SAME

Maite Sample, the Court appointed appellate counsel for Appellant, 

Javier Galindo Pacheco, respectfully moves to withdraw as counsel in this 

case. 

The reason for this request is that following a careful review of the 

complete court record and transcripts in this case, including the presentence 

report; after corresponding with Appellant, and after researching the law as 

it relates to the facts of this case, counsel has concluded that any further 

proceedings on behalf of Appellant would be wholly frivolous and without 

arguable merit within of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and its 

progeny. A copy of a letter sent to Appellant informing him of the filing of 

the Anders brief along with this motion to withdraw is attached to this 

motion. 

/s/ Maite Sample 

Maite Sample

SBOT # 24052072

ACCEPTED

01-14-00156-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/16/2015 2:31:31 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/16/2015 2:31:31 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk ------------------------ VOID K ------------------------ FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/17/2015 11:28:00 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true copy of this motion has been delivered via email to the 

appellate division of the Harris County District Attorney's office on 

February 9, 2015. 

/s/ Maite Sample

Maite Sample
NO: 01-14-00156-CR

JAVIER GALINDO PACHECO § IN THE FIRST 

V. § COURT OF APPEALS 

STATE OF TEXAS § HOUSTON, TEXAS

ORDER

Counsel for the appellant moves for permission to withdraw as 

attorney of record for the appellant and to be relieved of any future 

professional obligation, responsibility, or duty to the appellant. After 

considering the same, the Court finds the motion should be granted. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Maite Sample is hereby relieved of 

any future professional obligation, responsibility or duty to the appellant 

other than providing access to any and all materials which are necessary to 

represent appellant in this case and which are within her possession to 

retained counsel. 

SIGNED AND ENTERED this ______day of _____________, 2015. 

_________________________________________

Justice Presiding
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

April 16, 2007

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: May’s Distributing Company, Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 

 et al. 

Case Number: #2:06-cv-00702-MEF

Referenced Document: Document #75 

 Notice of Deficiency

This notice has been docketed to enter the Order and Sample Notice Format into the record

as an attachment to the referenced document which was omitted at the original time of filing.

The pdf of the order and sample notice format is attached to this notice.

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 76 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 1 of 1


**SAMPLE NOTICE FORMAT**

Note: When E-Filing this pleading, please enter a separate docket entry. The event entry is located on

CM/ECF by clicking: CIVIL > OTHER DOCUMENTS > CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

________________________ DIVISION

_________________________________, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. __________________

)

_________________________________, )

)

Defendants, )

CORPORATE/CONFLICT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

In accordance with the order of this Court, the undersigned party or parties to the

above-captioned matter do hereby make the following disclosure concerning parent

companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, partnership, joint ventures, debtor, creditors’ committee,

or other entities reportable under the provisions of the Middle District of Alabama’s General

Order No. 3047:

There are no entities to be reported.

- or -

The following entities are hereby reported:

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

 Signature 

 Date Counsel

 

Counsel for (print names of all parties)

 

Address, City, State Zip Code

 

Telephone Number

***Certificate of Service Required

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 76-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) 

V. ) Case No. 1:06-cr-190-DRB

)

RODNEY S. KEYES )

O R D E R

 Upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to Dismiss Information (Doc. 7, Nov. 20,

2006), it is, for good cause shown, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the motion

is hereby granted.

 DONE this 20 day of November, 2006. th

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DISMISSAL OF INFORMATION

 Comes now the United States of America with leave of the Court first had and obtained

and dismisses without prejudice the Information heretofore filed in the above styled cause

as to RODNEY S. KEYES. 

 Respectfully submitted,

 LEURA GARRETT CANARY

 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 /s/ Kent B. Brunson

 KENT B. BRUNSON

 One Court Street

 Montgomery, Alabama

 Phone: (334) 223-7280

 FAX: (334) 223-7135

 Kent.brunson@usdoj.gov 

Case 1:06-cr-00190-DRB Document 8 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cr-00190-DRB Document 8 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Adult Home at Erie Station, Inc., Respondent, v Assessor and Board of Assessment Review of City of Middletown et al., Appellants.

Submitted November 5, 2007;

decided November 15, 2007

Reported below, 36 AD3d 699.

Motion by New York Association of Homes and Services for the Aging for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and 24 copies filed within seven days. Cross motion to strike denied.
161 So.2d 282

#### Roy J. H. HODGES v. Louis G. HEIER, Sr., Louis G. Heier, Jr., Andrew F. Hillery, Joseph M. Meraux and Frank H. Schnell.

No. 47163.

March 16, 1964.

In re: Roy J. H. Hodges applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 159 So.2d 791.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law-in its judgment.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3187 Referred in House (RFH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3187

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 2006

             Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Post Office located at 5755 Post Road, East Greenwich, 
        Rhode Island, as the ``Richard L. Cevoli Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. RICHARD L. CEVOLI POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The post office located at 5755 Post Road, East 
Greenwich, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as the ``Richard 
L. Cevoli Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the post office referred 
to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Richard 
L. Cevoli Post Office.

            Passed the Senate July 20, 2006.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Part 5121 - Reserved
1327.404-5 Unauthorized, omitted, or

incorrect markings.

The designee authorized to concur with the contracting officer's determination that markings are

not authorized is set forth in CAM 1301.70.

Parent topic: Subpart 1327.4 - Rights in Data and Copyrights
#### § 631.4 Program applicability.

The program is applicable only to designated counties within the Great Plains states. County designation is a responsibility of the NRCS Chief.
#### In the Matter of Shirley M. Davis et al., Appellants, v Westchester County Personnel Office et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review the respondents’ denial of permission to petitioners to participate in a civil service promotional examination, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 3,1979, which dismissed their petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term was correct in dismissing the petition. It was served on or about October 27, 1978, more than four months after petitioners received notice, by a letter from respondents dated June 5, 1978, that their conditional admission to the competitive examination was disapproved. As respondents’ answer alleges, failure to commence this proceeding within four months of the notice rendered it untimely under CPLR 217 and clearly required a dismissal of the petition (see *Matter of Meliti v Nyquist,*41 NY2d 183). Accordingly, it becomes unnecessary to reach petitioners’ other contentions. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.7 To handle.

*To handle* means to sell, consign, transport or ship (except as a common carrier of hazelnuts owned by another person), or in any other way to put hazelnuts, inshell or shelled, into the channels of trade either within the area of production or from such area to points outside thereof: *Provided,* That sales or deliveries by growers to handlers within the area of production or authorized disposition of restricted hazelnuts and substandard hazelnuts shall not be considered as handling.
SUBPART 11.1 – SELECTING AND

DEVELOPING REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENTS

Parent topic: PART 11 –– DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

11.101 Order of precedence for requirements documents.

(S-90) Submission of Information Technology, Cyber and Telecommunications Requirements.

(1) Requirements for hardware, software, services, networks and systems (including

telecommunications) that require an acquisition package (e.g., SOW/SOO/PWS, equipment/material

list, QASP, evaluation plan) shall be submitted in accordance with the DITCO Information

Technology & Telecommunications Acquisition Package Submission & Ordering Guide website at

https://www.ditco.disa.mil/contracts/IT_instruct.asp. TSRs/TSOs and PDCs are not authorized

funding documents for procurement actions requiring acquisition packages.

(2) Requirements for individual telecommunication circuits (including integrated equipment,

installation, and maintenance), long haul telecommunications services satisfied via the Public

Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), commercial internet services, wireless telecommunication

services (e.g., cell phones, satellite communications equipment) and pre-priced telecommunication

services/equipment requirements available under existing Indefinite Delivery (ID) contract vehicles

shall be submitted to DITCO via the DISA Storefront (DSF) application at

https://disa-storefront.disa.mil/dsf/sfoverview. Telecommunication Service

Requests/Telecommunications Service Orders (TSR/TSO) with valid Product Description Codes

(PDC) are the only authorized customer requirements and funding documents for the

aforementioned telecommunications requirements.
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 12 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 12 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 12 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 12 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:06-mj-00077-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

JAMES PETTY, #124 252 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-639-WKW

RAY B. FINEDOR, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

ORDER

It appears that service has not been perfected on Defendant Hardy. If a person has not

been served, he or she is not a party to this lawsuit except in very unusual circumstances.

Consequently, in order to maintain litigation against Defendant Hardy, Plaintiff must furnish

the clerk's office with a correct address for this individual. Accordingly, it is ORDERED

that:

1. On or before August 28, 2006 Plaintiff shall furnish the clerk's office with the

correct address for Defendant Hardy. Plaintiff is advised that the court will not continue to

monitor this case to ensure that the defendant he wishes to sue has been served. This is

Plaintiff's responsibility;

2. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he fails to comply with this order, Defendant Hardy

will not be served, he will not be a party to this cause of action, and this case will proceed

only against those defendants on whom service is perfected. See Rule 4(m), Federal Rules

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 7 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

of Civil Procedure.

Done, this 14 day of August 2006. th

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 7 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Julius Lebovitz, Henry Levine, Nathan M. Werter and J. Morton Finke, Appellants.

Motion by appellant Julius Lebovitz to amend order of this court dated March 24, 1969 which *inter alia*modified a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 5, 1965. 'The judgment was modified by reducing appellant’s sentence to an indefinite term in the New York City Penitentiary and, as so modified, was affirmed. The movant now seeks to amend said order by (1) correcting the sentence as reduced and (2) suspending execution of the sentence as so corrected. Motion granted. The order is amended by (1) providing that the reduction of appellant Julius Lebovitz’s sentence is to a term of one year and (2) suspending execution thereof. Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 868.306 Milling requirements.

The degree of milling for milled rice; *i.e.,* “hard milled,” “well-milled,” and “reasonably well-milled,” shall be equal to, or better than, that of the interpretive line samples for such rice.

[67 FR 61250, Sept. 30, 2002]
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

HEWLETT

- PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant

- Appellee

FUJIFILM NORTH AMERI CA CORPORATION, FUJIFILM NORTH AMERI CA, FKA FUJIFILM USA, IN C., Defendants

______________________

2015

- 1552

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Sou thern District of New York in No. 1:12

- cv

- 00779

- RJS, Judge Richard J. Sullivan.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

G EORGE P AZUNIAK , O'Kelly, Ernst, & Bielli, LLC, Wilmington, DE, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

S EAN C. C UNNINGHAM , DLA Piper LLP (US), San Di ego, CA, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also representedby S TANLEY J OSEPH P ANIKOWSKI III, E RIN G IBSON , D AVID R AE K NUDSON ; B RIAN K. E RICKSON , Austin, TX.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , Chief Judge, N EWMAN and S TOLL , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 9, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-20302

Summary Calendar

__________________

CALVIN LYNN MARTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

R.L. BAKER, Sgt.,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-767)

______________________________________________

October 18, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Calvin Lynn Martin, Texas prisoner # 687496, appeals the

district court’s order granting Baker’s motion for summary judgment

and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Martin argues that

Baker’s summary judgment evidence was insufficient to show that he
2

was entitled to summary judgment, that there is a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether Baker used excessive force and violated

his constitutional rights, and that Baker is not entitled to

qualified immunity. Martin failed to present any summary judgment

evidence to support his allegation that Baker is not entitled to

qualified immunity. Martin failed to meet his summary judgment

burden of proof to show that there is a genuine issue of material

fact that precludes the granting of summary judgment. Therefore,

the district court did not err in granting Baker’s motion for

summary judgment. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069,

1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 97.152 Revocation of authorization; withdrawal.

An authorization of an attorney or agent may be revoked by an applicant at any time, and an attorney or agent may withdraw, upon application to the Commissioner. When the authorization is so revoked, or the attorney or agent has so withdrawn, the Office shall inform the interested parties and shall thereafter communicate directly with the applicant, or with such other attorney or agent as the applicant may appoint. An assignment will not of itself operate as a revocation of authorization previously given, but the assignee of the entire interest may revoke previous authorizations and be represented by an attorney or agent of his or her own selection.