alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3372

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Damien Lashaun Nelson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: April 18, 2022 Filed: April 27, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Damien Lashaun Nelson appeals after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and firearm offenses, and the district court 1 imposed an aggregate prison sentence to run

1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.partially consecutively to an undischarged state sentence. On appeal, Nelson

challenges as substantively unreasonable the district court’s decision to impose the sentence partially consecutively to his undischarged state sentence. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, this court finds no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the record, Nelson’s mental health issues, and Nelson’s request to run his federal sentence concurrently; and exercised its discretion to order that the sentence run partially consecutively. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); United States v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has “wide discretion” to order sentence to be served consecutively to undischarged sentence); see also United States v. Long, 870 F.3d 792, 799 (8th Cir. 2017) (district court may rely more heavily on some factors than others) (citation omitted) ; United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373, 376 (8th Cir. 2016) (no abuse of discretion where district court considered § 3553(a) factors and recognized its discretion to run sentences concurrently but declined to do so)

. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3491 

To prohibit United States contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change, and the Green Climate Fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. SCHMITT (for himself, Mr. DAINES, Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. SCOTT of South 

Carolina, Mr. MARSHALL, and Mr. LEE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit United States contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the 

Green Climate Fund. 

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 ‘‘No Tax Dollars for 

5 the United Nations Climate Agenda Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3491 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS 

2 TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON 

3 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE UNITED NATIONS 

4 FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE 

5 CHANGE, AND THE GREEN CLIMATE FUND. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 

7 made available to any Federal department or agency may 

8 be used to make assessed or voluntary contributions on 

9 behalf of the United States to or for the Intergovern10 mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Na11 tions Framework Convention on Climate Change 

12 (UNFCCC), or the Green Climate Fund. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
U.S.Departmentof Transportation Officeofthe Secretary ofTransportation

The Honorable Claire McCaskill United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear SenatorMcCaskill: 

### JUL 

## 272012 1-200 NewJersey Avenue; SE Washington, DC;20590

Thank you for your letter supporting the proposal submitted bythe Branson/Lakes Area Convention and Visitor's Bureau for a grant under the U.S. Department ofTransportation's Small Community Air Service Development Program. The Small Community Air Service Development Program was established to help smaller communities address air service deficiencies, particularly issues related to high airfares or insufficient service. Under'the statute, the Department may make a maximum of40 grant awards each year, although no more than 4 awards may be to communities in the same State. In orderto provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to their air service deficiencies, the statute provides flexibility in the types ofprojects that can be funded. On May 15, the Depruiment issued an order requesting that communities interested in receiving a grant this year file their applications by June 11. As these grant requests are pending before the Department, I cannot comment on the merits ofany particularproposal. I assure you that the Department will give full and fair considerationto all proposals that have been properly filed. As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter and this response inDocket DOT-OST-2012-0069 as a contact outside the record ofthis matter. I appreciate your interest in this program. Sincerely yours,·

# ~~- AlohaLey Associate Director, Small Community Air Service Development ProgramClAIRE McCASKILL MISSOURI



### Ms. Aloha Ley 

# <ianitnt**~tatn; ~tnate**  WASHINGTON, DC 20510



### June 21, 2012

Small Community Air Service Development Program United States Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE Washington; DC 20590 Dear Ms. Ley, 

### I am 

### writing to you 

### on 

### behalfof

### the Branson Airport and Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce 

### in**Branson~** 

### Missouri. These two organizations 

### have submitted 

### ajoint application for the Small Community Air Service DevelopmentProgram. 

### If**funded~** 

### Branson Airport would partner with their local Chamber ofCommerce and Convention and Visitor's Bureau to create a marketing campaign assuring tourists that Branson 

### is "open for business
... Such a campaign has become anecessity after 

### atomado hit the Branson business district in February, 2012. Thecommunity is recovering physically. but tourism is 

### still down. ll1e marketing campaign funded through this grant would aim at countering false assumptions that Branson area 

### businesses are still closed from tornado damage, and encourage visitors to return to the community. 1hope you will 

### extend every consideration to this application. Please keep me 

### informed on the 

### progress oftheir request.



### ){**1~**

### 120720-003 Claire McCaskill United States 

### Senator

1
Exhibit 10.7 – Construction Equipment Purchase Request Form 

This form shall be used and submitted for all construction equipment purchase requests by Tribal

Governments who have a Tribal Transportation Program Agreement with FHWA. 

1. How will this construction equipment be used for the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP)?

(If more space is needed, provide attachment)

2. What storage is available for the equipment? Check one: Garage Outdoors 

3. How will the equipment be maintained? Check one: In-house Contract Services

4. Lease/Purchase Cost Analysis:

Equipment Make and 

Model Model Year

Equipment 

Attachments or 

Accessories

Lease Cost Plus 

Shipping 

Round-trip ($) *

Purchase Price 

Plus Shipping 

One-Way ($)

* Note: Multiply the monthly lease cost by the number of months the equipment will be leased.

Add the cost of round-trip shipping from vendor to the project site and return.

5. What is the amount of TTP funds to be used for this purchase? $_______________

6. Enter the funding available for this construction equipment as shown on the current approved

Tribal TIP: $_______________

7. Attach copies of vendors’ quotes that show the costs entered in the above table. Vendors’

quotes may be on copies of emails from vendors and/or letters on vendors’ letterhead.

Requestor: Date:

FHWA Approved By: Date: 

Name/Title

Name/Title
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**As      Adopted Pursuant to **

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |                                                                                                                                     |                                       |
|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Dated: November              12, 2007 | By:                                                                                                                            | /s/              ohn              Van Zyll |
|                                       | John                Van Zyll Chief                  Executive Officer, Chairman of the Boardand                  Chief Financial Officer |

----
#### Hans WARNCKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 41351.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 27, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
DWS VARIABLE SERIES II

   SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES OF THE LISTED PORTFOLIO

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

                       DWS International Select Equity VIP


The following information changes certain investment limitations described in
"The Portfolio's Main Investment Strategy" section of the prospectus:

The portfolio may invest a portion of its assets in companies located in
countries with emerging markets. These countries are generally located in Latin
America, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. Typically, the
portfolio will not hold more than 35% of its net assets in emerging markets.







               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference



February 15, 2008                                             [DWS SCUDDER LOGO]
VS-3602                                                      Deutsche Bank Group
#### EXECUTIVE COMMERCIAL SERVICES, LTD., an Illinois Corporation, Petitioner, v. SOUTH FLORIDA PARTS & SUPPLY, INC., Joseph J. DeMarco, and Frances DeMarco, Respondents.

No. 77-1924.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 28, 1978.

*738James B. Davis of Rimes, Greaton, Murphy & Batchelder, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, which was a defendant in the trial court, has filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order that denied its motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. It used the wrong procedure in seeking this review. An order denying dismissal for lack of prosecution, even in an action formerly cognizable at law, is an interlocutory order which may be reviewed by interlocutory appeal. Fla.App. Rule 4.2. However, the erroneous filing of a petition for certiorari rather than a notice of interlocutory appeal does not justify dismissal where, as in this case, a proper review procedure is available and relief is timely sought. *State v. Johnson,*306 So.2d 102 (Fla.1975). We will treat the petition as an interlocutory appeal.

On the merits we find that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. There was no activity in this case for more than a year after the complaint was filed. If the plaintiffs had.some excuse for not serving their complaint on this defendant for more than one year after it was filed, they failed in their duty under Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.420(e) to show good cause in writing, at least five days before the hearing on the motion, why the action should remain pending. *Koppers Company, Inc. v. Victoire Development Corp.,*284 So.2d 193 (Fla.1973).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions that the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution be granted.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HENRY CLIFFORD BYRD, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-83-52, CA-00-276-1)

Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Byrd, Nos. CR-83-52; CA-00-

276-1 (M.D.N.C. July 19, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 21.1



Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc.

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|       |  |                                           |  |                      
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|       |  | Name                                      |  | State ofIncorporation
|(i)    |  | SSC Property Holdings, Inc.               |  | Delaware             
|(ii)   |  | SSC Benelux Inc.                          |  | Delaware             
|(iii)  |  | SSC Evergreen Inc.                        |  | Delaware             
|(iv)   |  | Shurgard Development I, Inc.              |  | Washington           
|(v)    |  | Shurgard Development II, Inc.             |  | Washington           
|(vi)   |  | Shurgard Development IV, Inc.             |  | Washington           
|(vii)  |  | Shurgard TRS, Inc.                        |  | Washington           
|(viii) |  | Shurgard/Morningstar Storage Centers, LLC |  | Delaware             
|(ix)   |  | SSCI Minnesota Corporation                |  | Washington
Docket No. FAA-2011-1164
<PAGE>   1
                         SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS, INC.
     EXHIBIT (12.1)- STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         COMPANY                        PREDECESSOR
                                   -------------------------------------------------    ------------
                                                  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,               DECEMBER 31,
                                   -------------------------------------------------        1997
                                                                                        ------------   
                                                                                           
                                     1997         1996          1995           1994          1993
                                   -------       -------       -------       -------       -------
<S>                                <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>    
Net income before
  extraordinary item               $42,311       $32,785       $29,572       $19,001       $18,284

Fixed charges:
  Interest                          17,096        12,829        12,038         9,105         2,288
  Amortization of loan costs         1,105         1,120         1,120           629            55
                                   -------       -------       -------       -------       -------
                                    18,201        13,949        13,158         9,734         2,343
Net income before
  extraordinary item and
  fixed charges                     60,512        46,734        42,730        28,735        20,267
Divided by fixed charges(1)         21,433        16,734        14,265         9,734         2,343
                                   -------       -------       -------       -------       -------
Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges                             2.82          2.79          3.00          2.95          8.80
</TABLE>


(1) Fixed charges includes capitalized interest that was not deducted when
arriving at net income.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Nautilus, Inc., a Washington corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that:

To my knowledge, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|               |  |  |  |     |  |                                     
|-------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|               |  |  | 
|August 7, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Edward J. Bramson               
|Date           |  |  |  |     |  | Edward J. Bramson,                  
|               |  |  |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|               |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)       

To my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Form
10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|               |  |  |  |     |  |                                                      
|-------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|               |  |  | 
|August 7, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ William D. Meadowcroft                           
|Date           |  |  |  |     |  | William D. Meadowcroft                               
|               |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 03, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 03, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17A0496. HOTEL EQUITIES GROUP, LLC et al. v. HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### Nell BLISS, John L. Bliss and Eleanor Bliss, Appellants, v. ESTATE of E. L. MARSH, a/k/a Eldridge L. Marsh, a/k/a Eldridge Leroy Marsh, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 70-191.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 28, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          28,697,041
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,721,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (676,857)
<INVENTORY>                                        547,859
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,647,715
<PP&E>                                          24,657,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (9,585,122)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,560,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,429,733
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       225,714,264
<OTHER-SE>                                    (197,581,479)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,560,999
<SALES>                                         43,583,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,583,149
<CGS>                                           36,104,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,104,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,257,789
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 356,938
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (37,813,496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (37,813,496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (37,813,496)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (1.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.23)



</TABLE>
259 La. 78

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Frank MILLSAP.

No. 51551.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 1971.

In re: Frank Millsap applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and habeas corpus.

Application denied; there is an adequate remedy by appeal.