alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4874

TIMOTHY ROMERO BENTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CR-98-36)

Submitted: June 22, 1999

Decided: July 12, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

B. Thomas Reed, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,

United States Attorney, Darryl J. Mitchell, Special Assistant United

States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Timothy Benton appeals his conviction and 147 month

sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994); one count of armed bank robbery

by force and intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2113(a), (d)

(West Supp. 1999); and using and carrying a firearm during and in

relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)

(West Supp. 1999). On appeal, Benton contends that: (1) the district

court abused its discretion in denying his motion for an evaluation to

determine his mental competency and (2) the court erred in finding

that Benton obstructed justice by perjuring himself at trial. We have

reviewed the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, and

affirm.

Although the district court characterized Benton's motion as one

made under "42 U.S.C. 4244(a)" when in actuality, the motion sought

an evaluation to determine mental competency pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 4241 (1994), the court made findings as to Benton's competency

and determined, based upon the record as a whole, that there was no

evidence indicating a competency hearing was warranted. See United

States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1290 (4th Cir. 1995). Because the

lower court's determination made it clear that the court considered all

factors appropriate to a consideration of a motion made under 28

U.S.C. § 4241 and would not have granted Benton's motion under the

standard applicable to that statute, we conclude the district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Furthermore, the court

did not err in finding Benton obstructed justice by perjuring himself

at trial and in enhancing Benton's offense level based upon those

findings. See U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (1997).

Accordingly, we affirm Benton's conviction and sentence. We

grant Benton's unopposed motion to submit the case on briefs

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

 2
No. 74-438.

#### Atheneum Book Store, Inc. *v.*City of Miami Beach.

Cir. Ct. Fla., Dade County. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

On June 15, 1971, a Miami Beach Municipal Court Judge ordered the materials in petitioner’s bookstore seized for use as evidence at a subsequent trial. The *983order followed a 13-minute examination of the store’s contents which convinced the judge that some of the publications on sale “based upon previous judicial decisions, constitute hard core pornography” and that the owners of the store were “pandering both to heterosexual and homosexual individuals.” The Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit affirmed, and the Third District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Florida denied certiorari.

It is my view that “at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly ‘obscene’ contents.” *Paris Adult Theatre I*v. *Slaton,*413 U. S. 49, 113 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). It is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, the Municipal Court Judge’s order was invalid. For the reasons stated in my dissent in *Miller*v. *California,*413 U. S. 15, 47 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, and, since the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida was rendered after *Miller,*reverse. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See *Heller*v. *New York,*413 U. S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).
Opinion filed September 16, 2010



## In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 10

- 00205

- C R

__________

MANUEL ANGEL OLIVAS

- MONTOYA , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR 127,886

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Manuel Angel Olivas

- Montoya has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his appeal. The

motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

September 16, 2010

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
No. 48181.

#### Protest 95722-K of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the papier-máché figures in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Strauss-Eckardt*v. *United States*(T. D. 48272). In accordance therewith the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1403 was sustained.
No. 46423.

#### Petition 6122-R of Universal Carloading & Distributing Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It appeared from the record that the importer had had similar merchandise and entered it at invoice prices, which were- accepted by the appraiser, and the merchandise was accordingly permitted free entry under section 1604 as agricultural implements. Therefore, upon arrival of the shipments under consideration the importer followed his previously accepted practice. The examiner refused-to accept such values and after conference with importer’s counsel it was finally decided to litigate the question. Both the single judge and the division affirmed the value found by the appraiser. The examiner stated at the trial that he found the importer to be very frank in supplying all information requested both in oral interviews and written communications. Prom an examination of the record and considering the facts the court was satisfied that the entry of the cream separators was made without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, to conceal or misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ray A. RATTLER.

No. 98-KH-1140.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Rattler, Ray A.;—Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “B”, No. 382-954.

*62Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the motion to the district court for its consideration.

VICTORY, J., not on panel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-28-1998             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,325                     121
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                         139,487                 207,189
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,890)                 (6,774)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,764<F1>             203,548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             7                       7
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,992                 130,753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,764                 203,548
<SALES>                                          8,132                  20,293
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,628                  20,329
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,052                   1,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,890                   4,884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 300                   5,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,386                   8,728
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,386                   8,728
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,386                   8,728
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.97                    1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97                    1.22
<FN>
<F1>CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME REFLECTS OPERATIONS FROM FEBRUARY 18, 1998
(INCEPTION) TO DECEMBER 31, 1998
</FN>


</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

297 KA 11-01644 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD A. SAID, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (VINCENT F. GUGINO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW B. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.), rendered March 1, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the first degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same Memorandum as in People v Said ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Apr. 26, 2013]).

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
(Reap. Dec. 9016)

Entry No. 778232, etc.

#### Bemo Shipping Co. *v.*United States

(Decided October 31, 1957)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court,

> 1. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals enumerated in the attached schedule consists of certain Rubber Gloves imported from The United Kingdom.

> 2. That on or about the dates of exportation of the said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption therein or for export to the United States; that such or similar merchandise was not at the aforesaid time freely offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption therein; that cost of production, as defined in Section 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of appraisement of ’the said merchandise; and that such cost of production is represented by the invoice unit prices, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals herein may be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice unit prices, ne't packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Kenneth KINCAID, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-2110.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 21, 1999.

*518James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patrick W. Krechow-ski, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Kincaid challenges the inclusion of two misdemeanors on his sentencing seoresheet. The state failed to produce certified copies of the judgments of convictions after defense counsel requested them as proof of the existence of the convictions. Given the objection made and the fact that the state failed to provide *any*evidence of these disputed convictions, we find that they should not have been included in the seoresheet. *See Blanton v. State,*546 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA), *dismissed,*551 So.2d 460 (Fla.1989); *Vandeneynden v. State,*478 So.2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (where defendant disputes truth of hearsay statement contained in a presentence report, court must require state to produce corroborating evidence).

We vacate appellant’s sentence and remand the matter to the trial court. On remand, the trial court may allow the state to produce evidence that Kincaid was convicted of the misdemeanors of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and driving without a valid vehicle registration. Failure to submit adequate proof of these alleged convictions will require resentencing without the inclusion of points for them.

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, C.J., COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS: TEST PROCEDURES FOR DISHWASHERS, 

DEHUMIDIFIERS, AND CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

Friday, December 17, 2010

9 a.m. – 4 p.m. ET, Room 8E-089

Purpose

During this meeting the Department of Energy (DOE) will present the notice of proposed 

rulemaking on test procedures for dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and conventional cooking 

products in standby mode and off mode. This meeting is intended to familiarize 

interested parties with DOE’s statutory requirements and proposed test procedures.

Agenda

9:00-9:05 am Welcome

9:05-9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15-9:45 am Stakeholder Opening Statements

Doug Brookman

9:45-10:00 am Introduction, Background and Legal Authority

Wes Anderson

Overview of past and current dishwasher, dehumidifier, 

and conventional cooking product rulemakings, including

statutory authority, schedules, and associated documents.

10:00-10:45 am Covered Products, Incorporation by Reference of IEC 

Standard 62301 (First Edition), and Determination and 

Classification of Operational Modes

Judith Reich

Definition of covered products, proposed incorporation of 

the methodology of IEC Standard 62301 for measuring 

standby and off mode power consumption, and proposed 

mode definitions under EPCA, as amended by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, including 

consideration of IEC Standard 62301 FDIS.
10:45-11:00 am Break

 11:00-11:15 am Address questions from the webinar audience

11:15-11:30 am Specifications for Test Methods and Measurements for 

Standby and Off Mode Testing

Judith Reich

Proposed amendments to add specificity to test 

methodology in IEC Standard 62301 for measuring standby 

and off mode power.

11:30-12:00 am Calculation of Energy Use Associated with Standby 

Mode and Off Mode

Judith Reich

Discussion of annual hours spent in active, standby, and off 

modes.

12:00-1:00 pm Break for Lunch (on your own)

 1:00-1:15 am Address questions from the webinar audience

1:15-1:45 pm Measures of Energy Consumption

Judith Reich

Proposed integrated energy efficiency metrics 

incorporating energy use in standby mode and off mode.

1:45-2:00 pm Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements and 

Impact of the Proposed Amendments on EnergyGuide 

and ENERGY STAR

Judith Reich

2:00-2:15 pm Conclusions and Closing Remarks

Address final questions from the webinar audience

Wes Anderson

Discuss outstanding issues and make concluding remarks.

2:15 pm Adjourn
No. 43186.

#### Protest 990321-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same as that passed upon in *United States*v. *Heinrich*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30). The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 was therefore sustained.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 268]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 3762]]

Public Law 115-268
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act. <<NOTE: Oct. 11, 2018 -  [S. 
                                3509]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Congressional 
Award Program Reauthorization Act of 2018. 2 USC 801 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Award Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2018''.
SEC. 2. TERMINATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 108 of the Congressional Award Act (2 
U.S.C. 808) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2018'' and inserting 
``October 1, 2023''.
    (b) <<NOTE: 2 USC 808 note.>>  Effective Date.--The amendment made 
by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2018.

    Approved October 11, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 3509:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Sept. 26, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2



RITA Medical Systems, Inc.



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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of RITA Medical Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Angel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 RITA Medical Systems Inc.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|   
|    | 
|By: |  | /S/    MICHAEL
ANGEL                 
|    |  | Michael Angel Chief Financial Officer



March
15, 2006



A signed original of this written statement as
required by Section 906 has been provided to RITA Medical Systems, Inc. and will be retained by RITA Medical Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered February 11, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01388-CV

TARSHA HARDY, Appellant

V.

COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-04027

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 5, 2020 second motion for an extension of time 

to file her brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to March 10, 2020. 

We caution appellant that further requests for extension will be disfavored.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
(Reap. Dec. 9050)

#### Alfa International Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 830015.

(Decided January 9, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawbence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Alpine satellite developmentplan for the proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 2 development project: finalsupplemental environmental impact statement**
 
SuDoc Number:I 53.59:G 79/FINAL

Item Number:0629-E-09 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001084368
 
Volumes: 01020304
 
June 10, 2020