alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-11326

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00443-WSD-AJB-1

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MOISES RAMALES-CASTILLO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

____________________________

(October 30, 2012)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Moises Ramales-Castillo pled guilty to illegally re-entering the United States

Case: 12-11326 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 1 of 3 
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). The district court imposed a sentence of

70 months’ imprisonment, at the bottom of the advisory range of 70-87 months under

the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Mr. Ramales-Castillo – who

requested a downward departure and downward variance to a sentence of 36 months

– contendsthat the 70-month sentence wassubstantively unreasonable. We disagree,

and affirm. 

We review a sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of

discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Reversal is

appropriate if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court

committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors

by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated

by the facts of the case.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11 Cir. 2010)

th

(en banc). 

On this record, the 70-month sentence, which was within the advisory

guideline range, was not substantively unreasonable. First, as the district court

noted, Mr. Ramales-Castillo returned to the United States only a week after being

removed, and this showed that he did “not intend to comply” with the law. Second,

after returning to the United States illegally, Mr. Ramales-Castillo was convicted of

battery in Georgia. Third, Mr. Ramales-Castillo had a number of prior felony

2

Case: 12-11326 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 2 of 3 
convictions – resulting in a criminal history category of V – and the district court

found that he had “engaged in pretty serious criminal activity” ranging from

“significant property offenses to significant drug offenses.” Fourth, the district court

considered, and rejected, the claim of cultural assimilation (under a downward

departure theory and a downward variance theory), see, e.g., U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, cmt. 

(n. 8), because Mr. Ramales-Castillo had moved to Georgia while his family

remained in California, the conduct in which Mr. Ramales-Castillo had engaged

“present[ed] seriousrisk to the community,” and althoughRamales-Castillo had been

in the United States “for a long time, there [was] not a lot of evidence that he ha[d]

become part of the American fabric.” 

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 12-11326 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                   1,243,942,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      75,492,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            49,089,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            24,447,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              5,489,283,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   3,480,541,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     3,494,231,000
<LOANS>                                 25,540,236,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                330,151,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          38,601,763,000
<DEPOSITS>                              29,131,051,000
<SHORT-TERM>                             5,498,139,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        356,622,000
<LONG-TERM>                                497,430,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   139,944,000
<OTHER-SE>                               2,978,577,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          38,601,763,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            512,478,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          131,560,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            22,403,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           666,441,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         257,455,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         323,844,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                      342,597,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               20,738,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              16,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            262,575,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            202,399,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 202,399,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               129,380,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.09
<LOANS-NON>                                152,630,000
<LOANS-PAST>                               121,393,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             5,084,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           315,412,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               20,082,000
<RECOVERIES>                                 8,549,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          330,151,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       330,151,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    330,151,000


</TABLE>
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0592 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NM

- 253

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed c ell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost T otal Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD h ave a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include speci fic requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES NO Explanation:
6/19/2014

PEI Calculator Updates from v11 to v12

The following are updates that DOE has implemented in the PEI calculator in the new version 12:

Substantive:

1. Removed variable load (VL) calculations for pumps sold with controls for simplicity, clarity, and

to enable early issuance of this calculator. Thus, this calculator only calculates the PEI Constant

Load (PEI

CL ) for pumps sold as bare pumps and pumps sold with constant speed motors. The

PEI VL calculator will be issued as soon as possible.

2. Updated minimally compliant motor efficiency tables from 10 CFR 431.25 to reflect newly

published DOE motor standards and ensured a conservative value is assumed for all hp bins for

the PER STD motor and for the motor paired with a bare pump.

3. Added minimum efficiency table for submersible motors.

4. Updated C

‐ Values

a. based on aggregated HI and DOE data

b. revised for RS

‐ V

c. to reflect more PEI levels between PEI10 and PEI40

i. PEI 10, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 55 are included

d. Note these C

‐ values are not yet “exact,” as the analytical team will have to iterate to

determine the exact PEI25 C

‐ values. However, they should be close.

5. Added tabs to enter tested wire

‐ to

‐ water input power data and calculate PEI for pumps sold

with motors.

6. Implemented new motor loss curve equation, including slightly different coefficients based on:

a. ensuring the curves are conservative

b. using newly available data provided by NEMA

c. updating motor losses for the minimally compliant pumps at each PER level.

7. Converted the equation for determining pump efficiency for a pump minimally compliant with

DOE standards to US units.

8. Added cells to convert all data to nominal speeds of 1800 and 3600 (from the data entered at

the rated speed) for calculations.

Editorial

1. Changed nomenclature to PEI for Index and PER for numerator or denominator value

2. Increased number of rows on each tab to a higher number (1000)
No. 10974.

#### Bowland, Treasurer, *v.*Cole et al.

Decided May 26, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. George S. Marshall,*city solicitor, and *Mr. John L. Davies,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. M. L. Boyd,*for defendants in error.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed at the cost of the defendants in error.

And thereupon, this court proceeding to render judgment which the circuit court of said Franklin county should have rendered, it is ordered and adjudged that there is due plaintiff is error on the several assessments as in the answer and ,crossr petition set forth, and interest thereon, duly levied and assessed on the following lots as the same are more particularly described in the answer and cross-petition herein, the following amounts, to-wit:

*435Said Lot No. 51, the sura of Two Hundred and Ninety-Six and 1-100 Dollars ($296.01), with interest from May 26, 1908; said Lot No. 52, the sum of Two Hundred and Ninety-Six Dollars ($296.00), with interest from May 26, 1908; said Lot No. 53, the sum of Two Hundred and Ninety-Six Dollars ($296.00), with interest from May 26, 1908.

It is, therefore, considered, adjudged and decreed by the court that unless the said defendants in error pay or cause to be paid to said plaintiff in error the said sums aforesaid, within three days from the entry of this decree, that said real estate be sold for the payment of said assessments and interest thereon, as provided by law.

It is further considered and ordered that the plaintiff in error recover of the defendants in error his costs in this court, in the circuit court and in the court of common pleas expended, to be taxed.

The improvements involved and the assessments made to pay- for the same, were had under the provisions of what is known in this case as the Taylor law, which for the- purposes of this case must be considered valid, and that the lien of the assessments, under said law continues until they are paid. The lien still existing tolls the appropriate remedy for its enforcement.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Summers and Spear, JJ-, concur.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

SNODGRASS 

Certified Public Accountants andConsultants 

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM 

 

Board of Directors 

First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc. 

 

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary as of September 30, 2004, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2004 and 2003, and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders’ equity for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2004 and theconsolidated statement of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2004 and 2003. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. 

 

We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantiallyless in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we donot express such an opinion. 

 

Based on our review, we are not aware of anymaterial modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

 

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and inour report dated February 6, 2004 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. 

 

Wheeling, West Virginia 

November 5, 2004 

 

/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C. 

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C. 

980 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003-6400 Phone: 304-233-5030 Facsimile: 304-233-3062
Exhibit 99.1












February 8, 2011

Analyst Contact:
Andrew Ziola918-588-7163Media Contact:
Brad Borror918-588-7582
  ONEOK and ONEOK Partners Presentation
 At Credit Suisse Energy Summit Canceled
 
 TULSA, Okla. –Feb. 8, 2011 – ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) and ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) announced today that they are canceling their presentation at the Credit Suisse Energy Summit on Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011, in Vail, Colo. Due to pending inclement weather in Tulsa, Okla., ONEOK and ONEOK Partners management will be unable to travel to the conference.
 
 The materials - including ONEOK Partners' updated 2011 and 2012 hedging information; 2011 natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGL) volume estimates; and NGL margin profile - that were to be utilized at the conference will still be accessible on the ONEOK, Inc. and ONEOK Partners websites, www.oneok.com and www.oneokpartners.com, on Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011, beginning at 7 a.m. Central Standard Time.
 
 
 ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a diversified energy company, which owns 42.8 percent of the overall partnership interest. ONEOK is one of the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, and its energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.
 
 ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) is a diversified energy company. We are the general partner and own 42.8 percent of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS), one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, which is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. ONEOK is among the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, serving more than 2 million customers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. Our energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S. ONEOK is a Fortune 500 company and is included in Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Stock Index.
 
 For more information, visit the websites at www.oneokpartners.com or www.oneok.com. OKE-FV OKS-FV
 
 ###
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7798 

To amend the Foreign Service Act of 1980 relating to selection boards 

regarding performance evaluations of Foreign Service officers, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2020 

Mr. CASTRO of Texas (for himself and Ms. TITUS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Foreign Service Act of 1980 relating to selection boards regarding performance evaluations of Foreign 

Service officers, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Promotion Accessi5 bility Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7798 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF GAP MEMORANDUM IN SE2 LECTION BOARD PROCESS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 603 of the Foreign Serv4 ice Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4003) is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(c)(1) A member of the Service or member of the 

7 Senior Foreign Service whose performance will be evalu8 ated by a selection board may submit to such selection 

9 board a gap memo in advance of such evaluation. 

10 ‘‘(2) Members of a selection board may not consider 

11 as negative the submission of a gap memo by a member 

12 described in paragraph (1) when evaluating the perform13 ance of such member. 

14 ‘‘(3) In this subsection, the term ‘gap memo’ means 

15 a written record, submitted to a selection board in a stand16 ard format established by the Director General of the For17 eign Service, which indicates and explains a gap in the 

18 record of a member of the Service or member of the Senior 

19 Foreign Service whose performance will be evaluated by 

20 such selection board, which gap is due to personal cir21 cumstances, including for health, family, or other reason 

22 as determined by the Director General in consultation with 

23 the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Rep24 resentatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 

25 the Senate.’’. 

26 (b) CONSULTATION AND GUIDANCE.— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7798 IH

1 (1) CONSULTATION.—Not later than 30 days 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Di3 rector General of the Foreign Service shall consult 

4 with the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House 

5 of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 

6 Relations of the Senate regarding the development 

7 of the gap memo under subsection (c) of section 603 

8 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as added by sub9 section (a). 

10 (2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

11 ‘‘gap memo’’ has the meaning given such term in 

12 subsection (c) of section 603 of the Foreign Service 

13 Act of 1980. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41767

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

HEATH LANNY LAKE ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 682

Filed: August 20, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Melissa Moody , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of six years , for possession of a controlled substance

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appell ate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appe llant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Heath Lanny Lake was charged with two c ounts of possession of a controlled substance

with intent to deliver and one misdemeanor count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Pursuant

to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance , Idaho

Code § 37

- 2732(c) , and the other charges were dismissed . The district court sentenced Lake to a unified term of seven years with a minimum period of confinement of six years

. Lake appeals,

co ntending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and2 need not be repeated h ere. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewi ng the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused i ts discretion.

Therefore, Lake ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Michael T. Vesey, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       ThisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Orleans Homebuilders, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended December 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  | March 1,  2004                          |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                    |
|   |                                    |
|   | Michael T.  Vesey                       |   |
|   | Michael T.  Vesey                       |
|   | President  and Chief Operating  Officer |

 

----