alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3973

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Orrington Gardner, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 15, 2010 Filed: July 20, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Orrington Gardner appeals his felon-in-possession conviction and the 120- month sentence imposed by the district court 1 following a jury trial. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that (1) the conviction was not supported by the evidence, and (2) the district court erred in imposing a sentencing enhancement.

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Gardner’s convic tion for being a felon in possession of a firearm. See United States v. Coleman , 584 F.3d 1121, 1125 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). Gardner sti pulated to the prior-felony-conviction and interstate-commerce elements of the offens e; and there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that he possessed a gun because po lice officers testified that they found a gun that appeared to have been recently dr opped in the direct path of Gardner’s 50- yard flight from police, and only the police and Gardner were present at the scene. See United States v. Lofton , 557 F.3d 594, 596 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements of offense); United States v. Light , 406 F.3d 995, 997-98 (8th Cir. 2005) (knowing possession of firearm may be based on circumstantial evidence).
We also conclude that the district court did not err in imposing a 4-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a fir earm in connection with another felony offense under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6). In any event, we conclude that any error was harmless because, after calculating the resp ective Guidelines ranges with and without the enhancement, the court expressly statedthat it would have imposed the same 120- month sentence in either case. See United States v. Icaza , 492 F.3d 967, 971 (8th Cir. 2007) (where sentencing court pronounces id entical alternative sentence, error in calculating Guidelines range is harmless if it is clear that alternative sentence is based on identifiable, correctly calculated Guidelines range).
Finally, after reviewing the recordindependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

_____________________________

-2-
#### § 794.5 Basic support for interpretations.

The ultimate decisions on interpretations of the Act are made by the courts (*Mitchell* v. *Zachry,* 362 U.S. 310; *Kirschbaum* v. *Walling,* 316 U.S. 517). Court decisions supporting interpretations contained in this part are cited where it is believed they may be helpful. On matters which have not been determined by the courts, it is necessary for the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator to reach conclusions as to the meaning and the application of provisions of the law in order to carry out their responsibilities of administration and enforcement (*Skidmore* v. *Swift,* 323 U.S. 134). In order that these positions may be made known to persons who may be affected by them, official interpretations are issued by the Administrator on the advice of the Solicitor of Labor, as authorized by the Secretary (Reorg. Plan 6 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1263; Gen. Ord. 45A, May 24, 1950, 15 FR 3290). As included in the regulations in this part, these interpretations are believed to express the intent of the law as reflected in its provisions and as construed by the courts and evidenced by its legislative history. References to pertinent legislative history are made in this part where it appears that they will contribute to a better understanding of the interpretations.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 493 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 493

    To limit consideration of amendments under a budget resolution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 1 (legislative day, March 13), 2008

 Mr. Specter submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                      the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    To limit consideration of amendments under a budget resolution.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS UNDER A BUDGET 
              RESOLUTION.

    For purposes of consideration of any Budget Resolution reported 
under section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974--
            (1) time on a budget resolution may only be yielded back by 
        consent;
            (2) no first degree amendment may be proposed after the 
        10th hour of debate on a budget resolution unless it has been 
        submitted to the Journal Clerk prior to the expiration of the 
        10th hour;
            (3) no second degree amendment may be proposed after the 
        20th hour of debate on a budget resolution unless it has been 
        submitted to the Journal Clerk prior to the expiration of the 
        20th hour;
            (4) after not more than 40 hours of debate on a budget 
        resolution, the resolution shall be set aside for 1 calendar 
        day, so that all filed amendments are printed and made 
        available in the Congressional Record before debate on the 
        resolution continues; and
            (5) provisions contained in a budget resolution, or 
        amendments thereto, shall not include programmatic detail not 
        within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on the Budget.

SEC. 2. WAIVER AND APPEAL.

    Section 1 may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an 
affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. 
An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly 
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal 
of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under section 1.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 K-Tron International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
R. Remick, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

May 13, 2003                                /s/ Ronald R. Remick
                                            --------------------
                                            Ronald R. Remick
                                            Senior Vice President and Chief
                                            Financial Officer
§ 94.205 What must I include in my drug-free workplace statement? You must publish a statement that— ( a ) Tells your employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in your workplace;
( b ) Specifies the actions that you will take against employees for violating that prohibition; and
( c ) Lets each employee know that, as a condition of employment under any award, he or she: ( 1 ) Will abide by the terms of the statement; and
( 2 ) Must notify you in writing if he or she is convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace and must do so no more than five calendar days after the conviction.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 I, Kevin D. Lemley, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Centra Financial Holdings, Inc. (the
Company);2.
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in this annual report;4.
    The Companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a- 15e)
for the Company and have:  a)
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosre controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;b)
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual 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; andc)
    disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect
the Companys internal control over financial reporting;  5.
    The Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the auditors and the audit
committee of the Companys board of directors:  a)
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal controls over
financial reporting. /s/ Kevin D. LemleyKevin D. LemleyMarch 19, 2005
    Chief Financial Officer 98
Page 1 of 2

.

AO 187 (Rev. 7/87) Exhibit and List 

United States District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA-MIAMI DIVISION

DELIO BATISITA,

CARLOS LOPEZ,

MARIANA LOPEZ,

and RAFAELA VALIENTE,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

AVANT ASSURANCE, INC., REINIER CORTES 

and ANDREA GONZALEZ QUINTERO,

Defendants.

DEFENDANT’S TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-22671-ALTONAGA

 PRESIDING JUDGE

HONORABLE 

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY 

FAIRLAW FIRM

Toussaint Cummings, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

135 San Lorenzo Ave

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY

CUETO LAW GROUP P.L.

Santiago Cueto Esq. 

Daniel Tropp, Esq. 

4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 

Suite 470 Coral Gables, FL 33146 

 TRIAL DATE(S) COURT REPORTER COURTROOM DEPUTY

PLTF.

NO

DATE

OFFERED MARKED OBJECTIONS ADMITTED Exhibit

1 Photographs of Avant Documents (Plaintiffs Bates 000001-17)

2

Avant Assurance Independent Contractor (IC) Standards Guide 

(Plaintiffs 000018-23)

3 Mariana Lopez Resignation Letter (Plaintiffs 000024)

4

Emails (Plaintiffs 000025-34, 000042-68, 000129-138, DOC 

000010-15, Defendants Mariana and Carlos Lopez 00002)

5 Independent Contractor Non-Disclosure Agreement (000036)

6 Avant Client Consent Statement

7 Work Schedules Created by Alix Ledesma

8 Avant 2022 Compensation and Bonus Plans (Avant 000022-23)

9

Delio Batista State Licenses and Certifications (Plantiffs 

000071-78)

10 Delio Batista Text messages (000081-000112)

11 Plaintiff Carlos Lopez Text Messages (Bates 000113-000127).

12 Spreadsheet of Payments to Plaintiffs (provided by Defendants).

13

All Monthly Commission Statement Spreadsheets sent from 

Defendants to Plaintiffs

14

All Monthly Commission Statement Emails sent from 

Defendants to Plaintiffs 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

.

15

Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Request for 

Admissions

16

Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs First Request for 

Interrogatories 

17

All of Defendant’s responses and documents produced in their 

request for production

18

A, R, H, 

UP, NP, I

DOL OPINION LETTER from Dept of Labor FLSA 2009-28

19

A, R, H, 

UP, NP, I

DOL OPINION LETTER from Dept of Labor FLSA WHD2022-0003

 

A – Authenticity

H – Hearsay

I – Inadmissible

NP – Not produced/disclosed before discovery cut-off

R – Relevancy

UP – Unduly Prejudicial

Respectfully submitted,

CUETO LAW GROUP P.L.

Attorneys for Employer/Contractor

4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd.,

Suite 470 Coral Gables, Florida 33146

Tel.: (305) 777-0377

By: Isl Daniel E. Tropp, Esq. 

Fla. Bar #948128

Tel.: (direct line) (786) 306-1293 

Email: dantroppesq@gmail.com

By: Daniel Tropp

DANIEL E. TROPP, ESQ.

Fla. Bar Lic. #948128

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 116-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2023 Page 1 of 4
PLAINTIFF'S BATISTA 

000076

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 116-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2023 Page 2 of 4

PLAINTIFF'S BATISTA 

000071

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 116-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2023 Page 4 of 4
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 111 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14431]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-130-1020-XU; GPO-0245]


Notice of the Meeting of the Eastern Washington Advisory Council; 
June 22, 2000, in Spokane, Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Spokane District.

SUMMARY: A meeting of the Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council 
will be held on June 22, 2000. The meeting will convene at 9 a.m., at 
the Spokane District Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1103 North 
Fancher Road, Spokane, Washington, 99212-1275. The meeting will adjourn 
upon conclusion of business, but no later than 4 p.m. Public comments 
will be heard from 10:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. If necessary, to 
accommodate all wishing to make public comments, a time limit may be 
placed upon each speaker. At an appropriate time, the meeting will 
adjourn for approximately one hour for lunch. The Topic to be discussed 
is the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Spokane 
District Office, 1103 N. Fancher Road, Spokane, Washington, 99212; or 
call 509-536-1200.

    Dated June 2, 2000.
Joseph K. Buesing,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-14431 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-U
#### § 183.601 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all boats that have gasoline engines for electrical generation, mechanical power, or propulsion.

[USCG-1999-5832, 64 FR 34716, June 29, 1999]
**EXHIBIT23.2**

 

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

TheBoard of Directors

ArrayBioPharma Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (No. 333-132205 and 333-51348) on Form S-8 ofArray BioPharma Inc. of our report dated September 1, 2006, with respectto the balance sheets of Array BioPharma Inc. (the “Company”) as of June 30,2006 and 2005, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equityand comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the year ended June 30,2005, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of June 30, 2006 and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of June 30, 2006, which reports appearin the June 30, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Array BioPharmaInc.

 

Our report dated September 1, 2006, contains anexplanatory paragraph that states, effective July 1, 2005, the Companychanged its method of accounting for stock-based compensation.

 

 

Boulder,Colorado

August 15,2008

 

----
“A lot of the kids we 

work with are exposed 

to community 

violence, chaos in their 

homes. But this very 

structured activity of 

beatmaking gives 

them a sense of more 

control. A repetitive 

beat is predictable; 

trauma is 

unpredictable.”

Elliot Gann
“It was dope because 

at the end of the day 

we agreed. There are a 

few brothers fighting 

but that doesn’t 

concern us. What is 

more important is the 

culture. So we are just 

one. And that’s one of 

the things that Next 

Level really did.”

Spyda
Conflict 

Transformation 

in Bandung
Conflict 

Transformation 

- Bandung
“Meeting in the middle 

is extremely 

important; we need to 

coexist. The b-boys 

now understand that 

there are people who 

are different in terms 

of style that have the 

same dreams, same 

hopes, same 

aspirations of being 

better.”

Wanda
The Next Level 

Principles

 Show respect

 Be humble

 Be self-aware

 Be present

 Be flexible

 Share yourself

 Be professional

 Recognize your privilege

 Listen as much as you speak

 Value process over product
Transforming Conflict 

through Hip-Hop

Mark Katz and Konshens the MC

mkatz@unc.edu; konshens@gmail.com
Editorial Note on Part 159
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 159.55 Identification. ( a ) Each production device must be legibly marked in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section with the following information: ( 1 ) The name of the manufacturer.
( 2 ) The name and model number of the device.
( 3 ) The month and year of completion of manufacture.
( 4 ) Serial number.
( 5 ) Whether the device is certified for use on an inspected or an uninspected vessel.
( 6 ) Whether the device is Type I, II, or III.
( b ) The information required by paragraph (a) of this section must appear on a nameplate attached to the device or in lettering on the device. The nameplate or lettering stamped on the device must be capable of withstanding without loss of legibility the combined effects of normal wear and tear and exposure to water, salt spray, direct sunlight, heat, cold, and any substance listed in § 159.117(b) and (c). The nameplate and lettering must be designed to resist efforts to remove them from the device or efforts to alter the information stamped on the nameplate or the device without leaving some obvious evidence of the attempted removal or alteration.
[CGD 73-83, 40 FR 4624, Jan. 30, 1975, as amended by CGD 75-213, 41 FR 15325, Apr. 12, 1976]
From: Muldoon, Albert (OST)

To: Rich Sewell (rich.sewell@alaska.gov); "akutanaleuttribe@hotmail.com"; "info@apicda.com";

"akutanadmin@gci.net"; "akutan@gci.net"; "rgifford@aeboro.org"

Cc: Grant Aviation, Bruce McGlasson (BMcGlasson@FlyGrant.com); Schlemmer, Kevin (OST)

Subject: Essential Air Service at Akutan, AK - Request for Comments - Due August 13, 2014

Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:14:40 PM

Attachments: Proposal to Provide EAS at Akutan Alaska.pdf

Please find attached the proposal of Grant Aviation, Inc. (Grant) to provide Essential Air Service at

Akutan, AK. This was the only timely-filed proposal and has been posted to the docket (DOT-OST2000-7068). Grant proposes to continue its existing level of service, providing 12 weekly nonstop

round trips between the airport at Akun (7AK) and Dutch Harbor, using twin-engine, nine-seat Beech

Kingair B-200 or Piper PA-31-350 Navajo aircraft. The proposal does not contemplate the

transportation of passengers between 7AK and Akutan. Transportation of mail and freight will be

provided via an agreement between Grant and the Aleutians East Borough. For its proposed service,

Grant requires an annual subsidy of $831,115.

The comments of the community and State are a critically important element in our carrier-selection

decision. We ask that you and any other interested parties carefully review the proposal and provide

us with any comments no later than August 13, 2014. We will docket this email as well as any

comments received. Please feel free to contact myself or the carrier with any questions.

Regards,

A.J.

A.J. Muldoon

Transportation Industry Analyst

Office of Aviation Analysis

U.S. Department of Transportation

albert.muldoon@dot.gov

(202) 366-1058
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3256]
 Creek County and the contiguous counties of Lincoln, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Osage, Pawnee, Payne, and Tulsa in the State of Oklahoma constitute a disaster area as a result of damages caused by severe thunderstorms, rain, and flooding that occurred May 5-8, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on July 24, 2000 and for economic injury until the close of business on February 26, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 4400 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite 102, Ft. Worth, TX 76155. The interest rates are: (Percent)For Physical Damage:Homeowners with credit available elsewhere
7.375Homeowners without credit available elsewhere
3.687Businesses with credit available elsewhere
8.000Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere
4.000Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere
6.750For Economic Injury:Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere
4.000
 The numbers assigned to this disaster are 325606 for physical damage and 9H4300 for economic injury. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008). Dated: May 25, 2000. Aida Alvarez, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 00-14224 Filed 6-6-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P