alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus REGGIE WALDO CANADY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00127-F-3) Submitted: August 23, 2006 Decided: September 18, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON & STYERS, PLLC, Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, Acting United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Reggie Waldo Canady appeals his 248-month prison sentence resulting from his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and for using and carrying a firearm during the drug conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). Finding no error, we affirm. Canady contends that the district court imposed his sentence in violation of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). After Booker , a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In determining the sentence, however, courts are still required to calculate and consider the guidelines range, as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Id . In sentencing defendants after Booker , district courts should apply a preponderance of the evidence standard, taking into account that the resulting guideline range is advisory only. United States v. Morris , 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). We will affirm a post-Bookersentence if it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. Hughes , 401 F.3d at 546-47.- 3 - Here, the district court correctly calculated Canady’s range under the now-advisory sentencing guidelines using a preponderance of the evidence standard. After giving due consideration to the § 3553(a) factors, the district court then sentenced him within the statutorily prescribed range for his offenses and below the range provided for by the sentencing guidelines. Canady has not rebutted the presumption that the district court imposed a reasonable sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
Exhibit 31.2

                        CERTIFICATION

I, Craig D. Stratton, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q  of
Allstates WorldCargo,    Inc.;

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;

3.    Based  on  my  knowledge, the financial  statements,  and  other
financial information included in this report, fairly present  in  all
material  respects the financial condition, results of operations  and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented  in
this report;

4.     The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and   I   are
responsible  for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls  and
procedures  (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
for the registrant and have:

  (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
       disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
       supervision,  to  ensure  that  material information relating to
       the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
       made  known to us by others within those  entities, particularly
       during  the  period  in  which  this  report  is  being prepared;

  (b)  Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's disclosure
       controls and procedures and presented in this report our
       conclusions  about the effectiveness of the  disclosure controls
       and procedures, as of the end of the period covered  by this
       report based on such evaluation; and

  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
       control  over financial reporting that occurred  during the
       registrant's   most   recent  fiscal  quarter  (the registrant's
       fourth  fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
       has  materially  affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
       affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and  I   have
disclosed,  based  on our most recent evaluation of  internal  control
over  financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the  audit
committee   of  the  registrant's  board  of  directors  (or   persons
performing the equivalent functions):

  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
      or   operation  of  internal  control  over  financial reporting
      which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
      registrant's ability to record, process, summarize  and report
      financial information; and

  (b) Any  fraud,  whether  or not material,  that  involves management or
      other employees who have a significant role in the
      registrant's internal control over financial reporting.


February 14, 2008

/s/ Craig D. Stratton
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer
[Cite as State v. Winningham, 132 Ohio St.3d 77, 2012-Ohio-1998.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . W INNINGHAM , A PPELLANT . [Cite as State v. Winningham, 132 Ohio St.3d 77, 2012-Ohio-1998.] Discretionary appeal accepted, court of appeals’ judgment vacated, and cause remanded for application of United States v. Jones. (No. 2012-0099—Submitted March 20, 2012—Decided May 10, 2012.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-11134,
2011-Ohio-6229.

__________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is
remanded to the court of comm on pleas for application of United States v. Jones
, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012).
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Pr osecuting Attorney, and Melynda Machol, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Raymond L. Katz, for appellant.

______________________
#### J. Q. Adams, *Appellant,*v. John D. Hobbs, *et al., Appellees.*

Where an execution is issued by the County Judge on a judgment rendered by the County Judge as such in an ordinary action in assumpsit, when there is a county court in the county, and such execution is levied upon real estate, the judgment on which the execution issued being void, and the remedy at law inadequate, equitable relief may be had against the levy of the execution on lands.

Appealed from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*McMullen*& *McMullen,*for Appellant;

*Parkhill*& *Jackson,*for Appellees.

Whitfield, C. J.

— The bill of complaint herein alleges in effect that J. Q. Adams, a resident of Polk county, owns certain land in Hillsborough county, Florida; that at sometime in the year 1910, J. D. Hobbs, A. J. Knight and L. E. Knight, partners as Hobbs & Knight, brought an action against Adams in the County Judge’s Court of Hillsborough County; that no affidivit that the suit was brought in good faith and with no intention to annoy the defendant was filed with the precipe in the cause; that the summons *ad res.*in the cause was served on Adams in Polk County; that judgment by default and final judgment against Adams were rendered' in the cause by the County Judge’s Court; that a transcript of the judgment was filed and recorded by the Clerk of the Circuit Court in the Foreign Judgment Records of the county; that execution issued thereon and was levied on the lands of *328Adams; that the lands were sold under the execution and a conveyance thereof made by the Sheriff to the purchaser at the execution sale and that several subsequent conveyances of the land were made. A cancellation of the transcript of the judgment of the County Judge’s Court and the conveyances as a cloud upon the title to the land was prayed upon the theory that the judgment of the County Judge’s Court is void. A demurrer to the bill of complaint was sustained, and the complainant appealed.

In the case of Garcia v. Pardo, decided at this term, it was held that upon the establishment of a County Court in Hillsborough County the trial jurisdiction of the County Judge of the county as such in ordinary civil actions at law ceases and no longer exists, and that while a county court exists in the county a judgment in an ordinary civil action at law rendered by the county judge as such is void.

A county court in Hillsborough county' was organized by Chapter 5987 Acts of 1909, which by its terms took effect upon its approval by the Governor, May 5, 1909. The action, in which the judgment here sought to be cancelled was rendered, was begun in the year 1910. At that time the trial jurisdiction of the county judge as such in ordinary civil actions at law was suspended and the judgment rendered was unauthorized. As the execution was levied upon land and a sale and conveyance of the land was made under the execution, the remedy at law is not adequate, therefore equitable relief is proper.

The order appealed from is reversed.

Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
§ 36.9 Acoustical change: Propeller-driven small airplanes and propeller-driven commuter category airplanes. For propeller-driven small airplanes in the primary, normal, utility, acrobatic, transport, and restricted categories and for propeller-driven, commuter category airplanes for which an acoustical change approval is applied for under § 21.93(b) of this chapter after January 1, 1975, the following apply: ( a ) If the airplane was type certificated under this part prior to a change in type design, it may not subsequently exceed the noise limits specified in § 36.501 of this part.
( b ) If the airplane was not type certificated under this part prior to a change in type design, it may not exceed the higher of the two following values: ( 1 ) The noise limit specified in § 36.501 of this part, or
( 2 ) The noise level created prior to the change in type design, measured and corrected as prescribed in § 36.501 of this part.
[Amdt. 36-16, 53 FR 47400, Nov. 22, 1988; 53 FR 50157, Dec. 13, 1988; Amdt. 36-19, 57 FR 41369, Sept. 9, 1992]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4176 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4176

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for home 
loans from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certain members of the 
    reserve components of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 2, 2020

Mr. McConnell for (Mr. Tillis (for himself, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Moran)) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for home 
loans from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certain members of the 
    reserve components of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS OF 
              THE ARMED FORCES FOR HOME LOANS FROM THE SECRETARY OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Expansion of Definition of Veteran for Purposes of Home 
Loans.--Section 3701(b) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(7) The term `veteran' also includes, for purposes of 
        home loans, an individual who performed active service (as that 
        term is defined in section 101 of title 10) for a period--
                    ``(A) of not less than 90 cumulative days; and
                    ``(B) that includes 30 consecutive days.''.
    (b) Expansion of Eligibility.--Section 3702(a)(2) of such title is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(G) Each individual described in section 3701(b)(7) of 
        this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. WATSON.

(Decided November 23, 1915.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, for appellant. Beddow & Oberdorfer, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed by agreement!
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/05/2010 07:16 PM

Subject: Plant language / High mercury facilities

Hi Tom,

Here is our proposed language related to the Durkee plant and the high mercury facilities

– please let

me know if you have any questions or comments:

Suggested for the RIA; should be in Chapter 3, preferably around Table 3

‐ 11 where social costs are

summarized.

“EPA notes that since conducting this analysis, one high mercury

‐ emitting plant has invested in control

technology estimated to reduce emissions by approximately 85 percent. The current analysis does not

include these actual costs in the baseline but rather estimates aggregate compliance costs based on

the averaging methodologies applied to all other modeled plants. In addition, because this investment

occurred after the analysis was conducted, the baseline benefits likewise do not include the

approximately 85% emissions reduction.

Finally, EPA did not estimate the change in social costs that would occur if the 2 high mercury

‐ emitting

plants were to shut down. “
#### § 292.20 Rule of construction.

Carriers holding an effective exemption from the duty to file tariffs under this part shall not, unless otherwise directed by order of the Department, be subject to tariff posting, notification or subscription requirements set forth in 49 U.S.C. 41504 or 14 CFR part 221, *except* as provided in § 292.21 of this part.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4309 

To amend the Community Services Block Grant Act to clarify that the 

maximum allotment provision does not apply to supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2020. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2020 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. BARRASSO, 

Ms. HIRONO, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. SULLIVAN, Ms. 

HASSAN, Ms. ROSEN, and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Community Services Block Grant Act to clarify that the maximum allotment provision does not apply 

to supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2020. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Services 

5 Block Grant Refinement and Improvement Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4309 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON MAXIMUM ALLOTMENT REQUIRE2 MENT. 

3 Section 675B(b)(3) of the Community Services Block 

4 Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9906(b)(3)) is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following: ‘‘The reduction required by this 

6 paragraph shall not apply to any funds appropriated 

7 under the CARES Act or any subsequent supplemental 

8 appropriations bill for fiscal year 2020, including any such 

9 funds that remain available for another fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD 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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-K for the periodending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”),I, Jonathan K. Hsu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| March 15, 2006 |                                                 |
|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                                 |
|                | /s/ Jonathan K. Hsu                                  |
|                | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                | (Principal Financial and Accounting 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.

 

----
#### Helen Goldstein, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Pincus Burger, Appellant, *v.*East Side Metal Spinning and Stamping Corporation et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.

(Submitted September 28, 1936;

decided October 6, 1936.)

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 272 N. Y. 424.)
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Richard Raymond Dixon, II, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00060

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 25255 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Richard Raymond Dixon, II, has adequately indicated his

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 11, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, C lerk
* 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. 96-30030

Summary Calendar

 

PURNELL E. MILLER,

Plaintiffs,

PURNELL E. MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., SHERIFF,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1789-C

- - - - - - - - - -

September 16, 1996

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Purnell E. Miller, #116387, appeals judgment for the

defendant in his suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Miller

argues that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because

Sheriff Foti failed to provide him with food prepared pusuant to 

diets prescribed for him by physicians. We have reviewed the
No. 96-30030

- 2 -

record and Miller’s brief and AFFIRM the district court’s

judgment for essentially the same reasons given by Magistrate

Judge Lance M. Africk at the conclusion of the trial. The

court’s findings are all supported by the evidence.

AFFIRMED.
**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 on Form 10-Q of Capital Bank Corporation
      (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, A. Christine
      Baker, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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




*/s/*  *A.
      Christine Baker*





A.
      Christine Baker


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      9,
      2006




This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002 and shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for purposes of Section
      18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
      Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
      general incorporation language contained in such filing.





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 or its staff upon
      request.
### Request for Additional Information: Dewmas Holdings, Inc. (FAA

- 2015

- 3118)

The follow ing are the proposed aircraft for the proposed UAS operation: Phantom 3 Standard Phantom 3 Professional & Advanced Phantom 2 Vision+ Phantom 2 Matrice 100 Guidance Spreading Wings S1000+ Spreading Wings S1000 Spreading Wings S900 Spreading Wings S800 EVO *NOTE: The listed aircraft are all vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) with a Ground Control Station (GCS) utilizing electronic tablet or sma rt phone systems.