alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES R. WILSON, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART :

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : No. 05-0524

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9

th day of January, 2006, upon consideration of the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment, the Amended Report and Recommendation issued by United

States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa, Defendant’s Objections to the Report and

Recommendation (Document No. 14), Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Objections

(Document No. 15) and Defendant’s Objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation

(Document No. 19), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation are

OVERRULED.

2. The Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgement (Document Nos. 10 & 11)

are DENIED.

3. The Amended Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

Case 2:05-cv-00524-BMS Document 20 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 2
2

4. This matter is REMANDED in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g) to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration for

proceedings consistent with the Amended Report and Recommendation of United

States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa.

BY THE COURT:

Berle M. Schiller, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00524-BMS Document 20 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 59455.

protests 184234-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### International Linen Co. and James G. Wiley et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. ____________

:

v. : DATE FILED _______________

:

BARBARA WITUSCHEK : VIOLATIONS:

: 29 U.S.C. § 501(c) (embezzlement from a

union fund - 2 counts)

INDICTMENT

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:

At all times material to this indictment:

1. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and

Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 161 (“Local 161"), known as the Riggers, was a “labor

organization” engaged in activities affecting interstate commerce within the meaning of Title 29

of the United States Code. Local 161 had approximately 115 members who specialized in plant

installations and machinery moving in Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, and Delaware

Counties. Local 161 was affiliated with the International Association of Bridge, Structural,

Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, ALF-CIO (“the International”). It negotiated and

was a signatory to collective bargaining agreements with the Contracting Riggers Association in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Local 161 maintained its business office at 3460 N. Delaware

Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

2. Defendant BARBARA WITUSCHEK was hired in or about 2000 as a

part-time secretary for Local 161's business manager James F. Jordan, III, charged elsewhere,

and earned an approximate net salary of $300/week.

Case 2:05-cr-00276-GEKP Document 1 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 3
2

3. Defendant BARBARA WITUSCHEK assisted James F. Jordan, III, in the

daily operations of Local 161 including the disbursement of checks from the general union fund. 

Any union check defendant WITUSCHEK prepared required Jordan’s approval.

4. Defendant BARBARA WITUSCHEK stole approximately $5,744.41 from

Local 161's general union fund by issuing two unauthorized checks made payable to herself and

her former husband, R.W. Defendant WITUSCHEK cashed both of the checks.

5. On or about the dates listed below, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District

of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendant

BARBARA WITUSCHEK

embezzled, stole, and unlawfully and willfully abstracted and converted to her own use moneys

and funds of the Iron Workers Local 161, a “labor organization” engaged in an industry affecting

interstate commerce within the meaning of Title 29 of the United States Code, in that, defendant

WITUSCHEK issued and cashed two unauthorized checks from Local 161's general union fund,

as follows:

Case 2:05-cr-00276-GEKP Document 1 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 3
3

COUNT DATE CHECK NO. AMOUNT

1 August 31, 2001 1184 $3,745.41

2 November 21, 2001 1291 $2,000.00

TOTAL $5,745.41

All in violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 501(c).

A TRUE BILL:

 

GRAND JURY FOREPERSON 

_____________________

PATRICK L. MEEHAN

United States Attorney

Case 2:05-cr-00276-GEKP Document 1 Filed 05/10/05 Page 3 of 3
12 MAY 2015

Twelfth Court of Appeals

1517 West Front Street

Suite 354

Tyler, TX 75702

Re: Marquel Scott v. State

12-14-00011-CR

Ms. Lusk:

Attached, please find a copy of the letter sent to my client regarding the opinion issued by the 

Court and the right to file a PDR.

If there is anything else I need to do, please let me know. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson

ACCEPTED

12-14-00011-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

5/12/2015 12:07:06 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 5/12/2015 12:07:06 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk

5 MAY 2015

Mr. Marquel Scott

Inmate: 01908010

Polunsky Unit

3872 FM 350 South 

Livingston, TX 77351

Re: Opinion

 

Mr. Scott Marquel: 

Please find enclosed a copy of opinion issued by the Twelfth Court of Appeals in your case. The 

Court has affirmed your conviction.

Should you desire to do so, you do have the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary 

Review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. If you decide to pursue that option you must file your 

petition prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the court’s opinion. That is by, 30 

May 2015. 

I would be happy to address any questions or concerns you have if you will simply let me know. 

Sincerely,

Austin Reeve Jackson
Microsoft Word 10.0.2627;


Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports dated February 14, 2002, included in Registration
Statement File Nos. 333-65974, 333-41454, 33-50922, 33-61532, 33-66482,
33-80726, 333-33485. It should be noted that we have not audited any financial
statements of the Company subsequent to January 4, 2002 or performed any audit
procedures subsequent to the date of our report.


                                                          Arthur Andersen LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
April 2, 2002
Joint Committee on Taxation

June 4, 2002

JCX-50-02

DESCRIPTION OF H.R. 2143,

THE “PERMANENT DEATH TAX REPEAL ACT OF 2001”

Present Law

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (the “Act”) made a 

number of changes to the Federal estate tax, including rate reductions and exemption equivalent 

amount increases that are phased in over time, as well as eventual repeal of the estate tax and 

generation-skipping transfer tax, effective for the estates of decedents dying and generationskipping transfers in 2010. 

In order to comply with reconciliation procedures under the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974 (e.g., section 313 of the Budget Act, under which a point of order may be lodged in the 

Senate), the Act included a “sunset” provision, pursuant to which the provisions of the Act 

expire at the end of 2010. Specifically, the Act’s provisions do not apply for taxable, plan, or 

limitation years beginning after December 31, 2010, or to estates of decedents dying after, or 

gifts or generation-skipping transfers made after, December 31, 2010. The Act provides that, as 

of the effective date of the sunset, the Internal Revenue Code will be applied as though the Act 

had never been enacted. Thus, under present law, the estate tax will return as to decedents dying 

after 2010, in pre-Act form -- i.e., without the application of the rate reductions, exemption 

equivalent amount increases, and other provisions of the Act. 

Explanation of Provision

H.R. 2143 repeals the sunset provision of the Act for purposes of the Act’s estate, gift, 

and generation-skipping transfer tax provisions.

Effective Date

The provision is effective as if included in the Act.
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 IQ Biometrix, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Walsh,
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, 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.


/s/ Michael Walsh
-----------------------------------
Michael Walsh
Chief Financial Officer

August 30, 2004
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1394

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Antonio McNichols, also known as Heavy Cuz

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

 ____________

 Submitted: June 9, 2020

Filed: June 12, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio McNichols appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised

release and sentenced him to term of imprisonment within the advisory sentencing

1The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.
guideline range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief

challenging the sentence as unreasonable. 

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district did not abuse

its wide discretion in sentencing McNichols. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d

910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). The record reflects that the district

court properly considered factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see United States

v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 943 (8th Cir. 2008); there is no indication that the district

court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or

irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors,

see United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006); and the sentence is

below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment. 

______________________________

-2-
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30172

In re: CHRISTOPHER FRANK , Movant

Motion for an order authorizing the Unite d States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana , New Orleans to consider a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

Before OWEN , ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM : * Christopher Frank, federal prisoner # 01160

- 748, seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence to life imprisonment for conspiring to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. A jury convicted Frank of that offense a nd two firearms charges in 1999, and he received a concurrent five

- year prison sentence and a consecutive ten

- year prison sentence for the firearms offenses. His life sentence resulted from the district court’s application of U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 and the cros s - reference found at U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1; the district court found that various murders committed in furtherance of the conspiracy constituted relevant conduct for purposes of
sente ncing.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 10, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30172 Document: 00513946915 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2017No. 17

- 30172

2 Frank argues that authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion is

w arranted in light of Miller v. Alabama , 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), which established a new rule of constitutional law that was made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review in Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S. Ct. 718, 736

– 37 (2016) . He contends that Miller renders his life sentence unconstitutional because (1) he was sentenced under a mandatory scheme to life in prison without the possibility of parole; (2) he was a juvenile

— between the ages of 14 and 17

— when four of the murders in question were allegedly committed , and he was a “young adolescent”

— ages 18 and 19

— when the other murders were committed ; and (3) the district court did not make an individualized sentencing decision

. We will grant authorization if, as relevant here, Frank makes a prima facie showing that his proposed claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. § 2255(h)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), (3)(C). R egardless of whether the guide lines

- derived mandatory life sentence fell within the Supreme Court’s limitations, Miller is unhelpful to Frank. T he relevant conduct that formed the basis for the cros s - reference to § 2A1.1 included murders that occurred after he had attained age 18. Th us, Frank has not demonstrated that Miller entitles him to authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. See § 2255(h)(2). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion is DENIED. Frank’s mo tion for the appointment of a neuropsychological expert is also DENIED. Case: 17-30172 Document: 00513946915 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2017
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-01661-MMB Document 29 Filed 02/17/06 Page 11 of 11
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 9, 2013

Decided May 13, 2013

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 12-3605

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DARRELL W. WELLMAN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 12-CR-118

William M. Conley,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Darrell Wellman, a federal inmate, was serving 60 months for possession of a

firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), when guards found marijuana sewn into his

underwear. He pleaded guilty to possession of contraband by a federal inmate, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1791(a)(2), and was sentenced to six months’ additional imprisonment. Wellman filed a

notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and

seeks to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We invited Wellman to

comment on counsel’s motion, but he has not responded. See CIR. R. 51(b). Our review is

limited to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate submission. See

United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973–74 (7th Cir. 2002).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 12-3605 Page 2

Wellman has informed his lawyer that he does not wish to challenge his guilty plea,

so counsel properly omits any discussion about the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of

the plea. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox,

287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel considers whether Wellman could challenge the reasonableness of his

six-month prison sentence but appropriately rejects this potential challenge as frivolous.

The prison term is within the properly calculated guidelines range of two to eight months

and thus is presumptively reasonable, and counsel identifies no reason to disturb that

presumption. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. MarinCastano, 688 F.3d 899, 905 (7th Cir. 2012). Before imposing sentence the district court looked

to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and considered Wellman’s supportive family and educational efforts.

But these considerations were outweighed, in the court’s view, by the seriousness of the

offense, Wellman’s continued drug use despite treatment and incarceration, and the need

to deter him and others from further criminal activity while incarcerated.

Wellman requested that his counsel argue that his prison term is unreasonable

because it exceeds the government’s recommendation of a sentence in the middle of the

guidelines range. But the district court was not bound by the government’s

recommendation, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49–50 (2007); Marin-Castano, 688 F.3d

at 905; United States v. Marty, 450 F.3d 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2006), and during his plea hearing

Wellman acknowledged that he could receive any prison sentence not exceeding the

maximum statutory penalty of five years.

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
No. 64813.

#### Metallurg, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/12047 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.2

                      CHAMPIONSHIP AUTO RACING TEAMS, INC.
                        5350 Lakeview Parkway South Drive
                             Indianapolis, IN 46268


================================================================================


                                  July 12, 2005


Thomas L. Carter
Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc.
5350 Lakeview Parkway South Drive
Indianapolis, IN  46268

Dear Mr. Carter:

        The purpose of this letter is to confirm the amendment to your
Employment Agreement. You agree that commencing July 1, 2005, through November
30, 2005, or until we complete our dissolution, whichever occurs first, your
salary and benefits will be reduced to $12,692.25 per month payable as
determined by the Company.

        If this letter accurately reflects your agreement, please sign a copy of
this letter and return it to my attention.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            CHAMPIONSHIP AUTO RACING TEAMS, INC.



                                            By: /s/ Christopher R. Pook
                                                -----------------------
                                                    Christopher R. Pook



ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO THIS 12th DAY OF JULY, 2005



By: /s/ Thomas L. Carter
   ---------------------
    Thomas L. Carter
Exhibit 99


                            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 Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust III (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended March 28, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John C.
Stomber, Regular Trustee of the Trust and Treasurer of Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, 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 Trust
    and the Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III


                              By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                              --------------------------------------------
                              Name:   John C. Stomber *
                              Title:  Regular Trustee




                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.


                               By: MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner



                               By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                               --------------------------------------------
                               Name:   John C. Stomber *
                               Title:  Treasurer


Dated: May 8, 2003
_______________________

*  John C. Stomber functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of each of the Trust and the Partnership for
   purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
(Reap. Dec. 8617)

Entry No. 21178, etc.

#### Montgomery Ward & Co. *v.*United States

(Decided June 29, 1956)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *476“A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

On the agreed facts I find the proper value of the involved merchandise to be the invoice unit prices.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 55877.

protests 117715-K, etc. (Honolulu).

#### Robert M. Schultz et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the articles involved in Abstracts 55389 and 50357, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1738 was sustained.