alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos MARTINEZ-AVINA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50332.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 8, 2007.

Filed Aug. 21, 2007.

USSD—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy R. Garrison, FDSD—Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KLEINFELD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and HART *, District Judge.

*

 The Honorable William T. Hart, United States Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM **

In a prior disposition filed on June 19, 2007, we resolved all the issues in this appeal except the question of whether the district court gave improper consideration *421to the Sentencing Guidelines. *See generally United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We reserved resolution of this issue pending the Supreme Court’s decision in *Rita v. United States,*— U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). In light of the Court’s recent decision in *Rita*we affirm Martinez-Avina’s sentence.

In imposing sentence, the district judge expressed her recognition that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory following *Booker.*She also gave consideration to all of Defendant’s reasons for being sentenced outside the Guidelines sentencing range before determining that a sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines sentencing range was the proper sentence to impose. The district judge’s statement of her reasons was sufficient and did not violate any applicable statute or case law. *See Rita,*127 S.Ct. at 2468-69. Defendant does not raise any other ground for holding that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. Defendant’s sentence is affirmed.

STAY OF MANDATE VACATED, SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                       615
<INVENTORY>                                    126,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,903
<PP&E>                                         348,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                 165,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 385,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,499
<BONDS>                                        101,961
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,808
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,551
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   385,221
<SALES>                                        267,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               267,795
<CGS>                                          233,533
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  233,533
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     2
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,884
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,036
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,843
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,843
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>          MAR-31-1998

<CASH>                      21,143,932 
<SECURITIES>                      0    
<RECEIVABLES>                2,695,204 
<ALLOWANCES>                      0    
<INVENTORY>                       0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>            23,839,136 
<PP&E>                      45,730,726 
<DEPRECIATION>                    0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              89,866,198 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        3,299,974 
<BONDS>                    112,027,345 
<COMMON>                          0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0    
<PREFERRED>                       0    
<OTHER-SE>                 (33,293,266)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>89,866,198 
<SALES>                      2,447,456 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             2,771,311 
<CGS>                             0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  979,040 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               481,535 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           3,170,114 
<INCOME-PRETAX>             (1,859,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>         (1,248,711)
<DISCONTINUED>              23,327,695 
<EXTRAORDINARY>             17,451,802 
<CHANGES>                         0    
<NET-INCOME>                39,530,786 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    88.31 
<EPS-DILUTED>                    88.31 
        


</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

MAXIE McNABB, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv664-MHT

) 

SANDERS LEAD COMPANY, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that plaintiff Maxie McNabb’s motion to

leave the record open (doc. no. 27) is set for

submission, without oral argument, on July 16, 2007, with

all briefs due by said date.

DONE, this the 9th day of July, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 29 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE

Jeffrey L. Sanford Gregory F. Zoeller

South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

_____________________ _________________________________________________________



# In the



# Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________

No. 71S03

- 1306

- CR

- 455

V ALENTIN E SCOBEDO

, Appellant (Defendant),

v.

S TATE OF I NDIANA

, Appellee (Plaintiff)

.

_________________________________

Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court, No. 71D01

- 0812

- FA

- 49

The Honorable Jane Woodward Miller , Judge

_________________________________

On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 71A03

- 1202

- CR

- 60

__________________________ _______

June 28, 2013

Dickson, Chief Justice.

Sentenced to an aggregate term of fifty

- three years upon convictions for Battery, a class

A felony, and Neglect of a Dependent as a class D felony, the defendant appealed asserting

claims of error in the tr ial court's evidentiary rulings and seeking appellate sentence review and

revision under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Escobedo v. State

,

987 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We now grant trans fer to address a single point.

In rejecting the defendant's request for appellate sentence revision

, the Court of Appeals

summarized its analysis as follows: "In other words, the maximum sentence here can be justified2

as a deontological response giving voice to a community's outrage, based on the facts and ci rcumstances of the crime." Id. at 120 . We disagree and disapprove of consideration of a comm unity's outrage in the determination or review of a criminal sentence. Notwithstanding this refe rence, however, we agree with the ultim ate conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the sentence

imposed by the trial court is appro priate and should be affirmed.

In all other respects we summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals. I ndiana

Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

Rucker, David, Ma ssa, and Rush, JJ., concur.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00147-CR

John David PRATT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-9783

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 11, 2011

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

On February 16, 2011, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s pre-trial 

order denying his special plea of double jeopardy. Appellant’s special plea alleges that double 

jeopardy bars his criminal prosecution for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, to wit: a 

motor vehicle, because he was previously convicted of DWI arising out of the same criminal 

transaction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 27.05 (West 2006). We do not have 

jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from a denial of a special plea of double jeopardy. Ex 
04-11-00147-CR

- 2 -

parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The special plea of double 

jeopardy is a mechanism for avoiding reconviction, not retrial. Id. (noting the facts concerning 

the special plea are determined during trial on the merits). If a trial court construes a special plea 

of double jeopardy as a pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus, this court has jurisdiction to 

review denial of the habeas relief. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 11.01-.03 (West 

2005); Ex parte Cantu, 913 S.W.2d 701, 703-704 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, pet. ref’d) 

(trial court may choose to construe pleading styled as a special plea of double jeopardy as a 

habeas petition, but appellate court may not). Here, the appellate record shows the trial court 

treated the appellant’s double jeopardy challenge as a special plea of double jeopardy, and did 

not construe it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. C.f., Ex parte Cantu, 913 S.W.2d at 703-

705 (record affirmatively showed trial court proceeded as if special plea were a writ of habeas 

corpus). Therefore, on March 24, 2011, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond. Accordingly, this 

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT PRUETER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06CV694-VPM

)

CDA DETECTIVE & SECURITY )

SERVICES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary

Judgment on 14 August 2006 (Doc. # 3). The defendant alleges that the plaintiffs’ state law

claims “are preempted by Section 310 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.

§ 185[,] and that the Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies”. The court

has reviewed the complaint and the amended complaint filed in state court and concludes that

the two claims, to wit, wrongful termination and breach of contract, are indeed state law

claims. Moreover, the defendants have filed their Answer. Accordingly, it is ORDERED

as follows:

1. On or before 29 August 2006, the plaintiff shall show cause in writing why the

motion should not be granted - both as to dismissal and summary judgment.

2. Although the time for notifying the court of consent to disposition by a

Magistrate Judge has not yet expired, the motion before the court is a

dispositive motion. Inasmuch as the parties have not yet consented, on or

Case 1:06-cv-00694-MHT-VPM Document 5 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 3
before 29 August 2006, they shall separately notify the Cl;erk of the court

whether they wish to consent to the Magistrate Judge in writing by sending a

completed consent form to the Clerk of the court. A copy of the form is

attached for a party's use. The parties are ADVISED that they may freely

decline to consent without adverse consequences.

DONE this 15 day of August, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00694-MHT-VPM Document 5 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

________________ DIVISION

____________________________, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 

_____________________________, )

 )

Defendant. )

CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In accordance with the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. § 636(c), the undersigned party or

parties to the above-captioned civil matter who previously have indicated their consent to the

jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge of this Court, hereby confirm in writing their consent to a United

States Magistrate Judge conducting any and all further proceedings in the case, including trial, and

ordering the entry of a final judgment.

___________________________ __________________________________________

DATE SIGNATURE

__________________________________________

COUNSEL FOR (print name of all parties)

__________________________________________

ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE

__________________________________________

TELEPHONE NUMBER

Case 1:06-cv-00694-MHT-VPM Document 5 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Igor Gorodnitsky , Chief Executive Officer
of Cavitation Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



The Annual Report on Amendment No. 4 on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2016 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78m); and



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



|Date: April 28, 2017 | /s/ IGOR GORODNITSKY          
|-------------------- | ------------------------------
|                     | Name: Igor Gorodnitsky        
|                     | Title: Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 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.
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**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**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Property Investors8 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of thePartnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financialofficer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
In the motion, Petitioner asserts that his request for counsel is primarily made for purposes of 1

providing him with “effective utilization of discovery procedures.” (Doc. No. 22 at 11.) Petitioner is

advised that a habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course. See Bracy v.

Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 ______________________________

HOWARD GLENN TOOLE, *

#C 917683

Petitioner, *

 v. * 2:06-CV-714-MHT

 (WO) 

JAMES MCDONOUGH, et al., * 

Respondents. *

 ______________________________

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel filed on January

25, 2007, and as the court finds no circumstances warranting such action at this time, it is

ORDERED that this motion (Doc. No. 22) be and is hereby DENIED. See McFarland 1

v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 857 n. 3 (1994) (a petitioner serving a noncapital sentence has no right to

appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding). 

To the extent Petitioner’sJanuary 25 pleading contains a request for an order directing

correctional officials at his present place of incarceration to provide him with a certain

minimum amount of time in the prison law library, it is 

ORDERED that the motion for court order (Doc. No. 22) be and is hereby DENIED.

Upon consideration of Petitioner’s January 25 pleading, also construed as a motion

to compel Respondents to provide him with copies of Alabama case law and legal references

Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 23 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
as contained in their responsive pleadings and any future pleadings, and for good cause, it

is 

ORDERED that the motion (Doc. No. 22) be and is hereby DENIED. Petitioner may

contact the appropriate correctional official concerning his request for legal material. 

Done, this 29 day of January 2007. th

 /s/Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 23 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF 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 accompanying annual Report on Form 10-K of General Automotive Company for the year ended December 31, 2010, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





By:

/s/ Dan ValladaoName:

Dan ValladaoTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

April 15, 2011By:

/s/ Shawn Powell JosephName:

Shawn Powell JosephTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

April 15, 2011




This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to General Automotive Company and will be retained by General Automotive Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3227 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3227

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain twisted yarn of viscose 
                                 rayon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain twisted yarn of viscose 
                                 rayon.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN TWISTED YARN OF VISCOSE RAYON.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.54.04        Single yarn of viscose  Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           rayon, with a twist                                               31/2009          ''
                           exceeding 120 turns/m                                                               .
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           5403.32.00)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3317 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3317

To suspend temporarily the duty on cosmetic bags with a flexible outer 
      surface of reinforced or laminated polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2006

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on cosmetic bags with a flexible outer 
      surface of reinforced or laminated polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

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

SECTION 1. COSMETIC BAGS WITH A FLEXIBLE OUTER SURFACE OF REINFORCED OR 
              LAMINATED POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.11.43        Vanity cases that are   Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           of a soft sided                                                   31/2009          ''
                           construction, of                                                                    .
                           reinforced or
                           laminated polyvinyl
                           chloride plastics,
                           and are of a kind
                           normally carried in
                           the pocket or in the
                           handbag and used to
                           contain and apply
                           cosmetic preparations
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           4202.12.20)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```