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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6965

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONALD KIRKLAND, a/k/a Popcorn,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 01-7012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MAYSO A. LAWRENCE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 01-7073

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
2

versus

MARTHA CHARICE COOK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting

by designation. (CR-89-391-JFM)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 21, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Kirkland, Mayso A. Lawrence, Jr., Martha Charice Cook,

Appellants Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; John Vincent Geise, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court’s order denying

their 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000) motions for reduced sentences.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Kirkland;

United States v. Lawrence; United States v. Cook, No. CR-89-391-JFM

(D. Md. May 30, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000037070
<NAME> N/A

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,991,734
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,543,485
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,476,226
<PP&E>                                      53,423,750
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,184,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,013,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,327,787
<BONDS>                                     32,328,242
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,374,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,013,824
<SALES>                                      2,899,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,691,619
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,184,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               570,788
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             716,846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,050,310
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,050,310
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,050,310
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7885 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7885

 To amend the CARES Act to clarify authorized uses of provider relief 
                     funds, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2020

 Ms. Porter (for herself and Mr. Upton) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the CARES Act to clarify authorized uses of provider relief 
                     funds, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Remote Patient Monitoring Access 
Act'' or ``RPM Access Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORIZED USES OF PROVIDER RELIEF FUNDS.

    (a) Clarification.--Title VIII of division B of the Coronavirus 
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136) is amended 
in the third paragraph under the heading ``Office of the Secretary--
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'' by inserting after 
the fifth proviso the following: ``Provided further, That funds 
appropriated under this paragraph in this Act shall be available for 
the costs associated with furnishing remote patient monitoring services 
that meet evidence-based practice guidelines or clinical practice 
guidelines (including but not limited to such guidelines issued by 
professional medical associations, voluntary health organizations, or 
agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services (including the 
National Institutes of Health)) and that meet appropriate patient data 
security and privacy standards (including but not limited to such 
standards established under the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act of 1996, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Common Security Framework, or the international standard for 
information security management system ISO/IEC 27001):''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, 
Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe annual report on Form 10-K of THQ Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian J. Farrell, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

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

|        | /s/ Brian J. Farrell                                         |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Brian J. Farrell  Chief Executive Officer  June 7, 2006 |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4904

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus HOWARD MARK HARTLEY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (2:06-cr-00017) Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: February 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryant J. Spann, ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: After Howard Mark Hartley pleaded guilty to manufacturing by growing and cultivating marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000), the district court sentenced him to twelve months imprisonment. On appeal, Hartley argues that the district court misunderstood the scope of its discretion under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). After reviewing the record, we agree that the district court may have sentenced Hartley while operating under an errant conception of the scope of its discretion under our precedent. Under our post-Bookercases, a district court may impose a sentence below the guidelines range if, after assessing the factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2006), it believes such a sentence is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to achieve the goals of § 3553(a). See United States v. Davenport , 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). “The farther the court diverges from the advisory guideline range, the more compelling the reasons for the divergence must be.” United States v. Moreland , 437 F.3d 424, 434 (4th Cir. 2006). Although we do not accord district courts a free hand with respect to variances, we also do not foreclose a variance if accompanied by an explanation which makes the final sentence a reasonable one. Nothing in this opinion should be read to suggest that we have formed any view regarding the appropriate outcome of Hartley’s resentencing.- 3 - Because the record indicates that the district court misunderstood our precedent, we vacate its judgment and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED
#### CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Charles Fleming CHASTAIN and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a corporation, Appellees.

No. 73-225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

Thomas G. Wright, Jr., Asst. City Atty., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

R. E. Ulmer, Jr., of Ulmer & Wood-worth, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Perdue v. Copeland, Fla.1969, 220 So.2d 617.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
KBS Legacy Q4 2013 Exhibit 10.39




Exhibit 10.39
ALLONGE TO
NOTE
(MULTISTATE)
HUD PROJECT NO. 085-35545
HUD PROJECT NAME: The Lofts at the Highlands
	
			
	US $32,539,400.00
	 
	February ___, 2014




(the “Note”)
--------------------------------------------------
KBS Legacy Partners Lofts LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Borrower”), hereby assumes and agrees to be bound by the Note from and after the date set forth below, pursuant to the terms of that certain Modification/Release and Assumption Agreement executed by the Borrower, Highlands Lofts, LLC, a Missouri limited liability company (the original Maker of the Note), Gershman Investment Corp., an Arkansas corporation, as Lender, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).
The Note shall otherwise remain in full force and effect as originally written, except as follows:
In Section 8. Exculpation; Remedies, subsection (a) is hereby deleted and the following subsection (a) is inserted in lieu thereof:
“(a)  Except for personal liability expressly provided for in this Note or in the Security Instrument or in the Regulatory Agreement, the execution of this Note shall impose no personal liability upon Borrower and KBS Legacy Partners Properties LLC for payment of the Indebtedness evidenced thereby and in the Event of Default, the holder of the Note shall look solely to the Mortgaged Property in satisfaction of the Indebtedness and will not seek or obtain any deficiency or personal judgment against Borrower and KBS Legacy Partners Properties LLC except such judgment or decree as may be necessary to foreclose or bar its interest in the Mortgaged Property and all other property mortgaged, pledged, conveyed or assigned to secure payment of the Indebtedness; provided, that nothing in this Section 8 of this Note and no action so taken shall operate to impair any obligation of Borrower under the Regulatory Agreement.”  
(The Allonge signature page follows this page.)







KBS LEGACY PARTNERS LOFTS LLC,
A Delaware limited liability company
		
	By:
	KBS Legacy Partners Properties LLC,


A Delaware limited liability company
		
	By:
	KBS Legacy Partners Limited Partnership,


A Delaware limited partnership,
Its sole member
		
	By:
	KBS Legacy Partners Apartments REIT, Inc.,


A Maryland corporation,
Its sole general partner


		
	By:
	/s/ Guy K. Hays


Guy K. Hays,
Its Executive Vice President


Dated:    February ____, 2014
#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. Kenneth OWEN.

No. 60745.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 13, 1977.

In re: Kenneth Owen applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Granted. The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Andrew G. Búcaro, Judge Ad Hoc, Criminal District Court; Servando Garcia, Judge Ad Hoc, Municipal Court, City of New Orleans, for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 27th day of October, 1977, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained..

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### AMERICAN MOTORS SALES CORPORATION, and Crane Brothers Motors, Inc., Appellants, v. D. D. CONNELL, Appellee.

No. 72-43.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1973.

Dixon, Dixon, Lane & Mitchell, Miami, and Conely & Conely, Okeechobee, for appellants.

Sanford M. Swerdlin, Clewiston, for ap-pellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

Connell’s complaints that his new car was overheating were not properly attended to by the dealer, and when his engine failed they argued for months about who was responsible. A jury, convinced by testimony that Connell and another man had boiled the thermostat and it still failed to open, and that there was a residue of solder in the radiator, found the manufacturer and dealer liable. This finding is sustained.

How the jury determined the damages to be $16,022.78 is another question. We need not determine at what point one financially able to finance repairs elsewhere must take a recalcitrant auto dealer’s no for an answer and hire somebody to do the work right, but certainly the law on this subject is germane on retrial. See generally Annot., 18 A.L.R.3d 497 (1968); Annot., 55 A.L.R.2d 936 (1957).

The trial judge’s instruction on the plaintiff’s responsibility to avoid accrual of excessive damages is legally sound. Whether it was ignored was a question we need not reach.

*369 It suffices for present purposes to hold that at least in part the verdict follows a prejudicially erroneous instruction that Connell’s damages included, but were “not limited to, the value of the motor vehicle,” (which was repossessed by the plaintiff lender, no longer a party) “the loss of use thereof *as well as the rental value of a substitute vehicle .*. . ” (Emphasis supplied) There is no evidence that Connell did, in fact, rent a substitute vehicle. Nevertheless he was privileged to show what rental would have cost him as evidence of damages for loss of use. Meakin v. Dreier, Fla.App.2d 1968, 209 So.2d 252. The instruction given encouraged duplication of a single element of damages.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only.

LILES, and PIERCE, JJ. (ret.), concur.
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- EX-10.9




 Exhibit 10.9         

January 4, 2012 
 Robert D. Cochran 

[PRIVATE ADDRESS] 
 Dear Rob: 

I am pleased to confirm the offer for you to join A10 Networks, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), as its Vice
President, Legal and Corporate Collaboration at our San Jose headquarters. This is a full-time permanent position. You will be reporting to the President of A10/Lee Chen. 

Your starting salary will be at a rate of $240,000 per year, payable in accordance with the company’s payroll schedule. You will have the
Management by Objectives (MBO) Bonus of $40,000. The MBO will be pending on your first year performance, subjecting itself to the review of A10’s CEO. 

You will also be granted options or the opportunity to purchase 890,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, subject to the terms and
conditions of the Company’s 2008 Stock Plan. Generally speaking, those terms will include, in your case, among other things, vesting as to 1/4 of the shares after 1 year of employment, and an additional 1/48th of the shares at the end of each
additional month thereafter. However, the vesting of your options will be subject to a special acceleration of fifty percent (50%) of the number of shares then unvested upon and in the event of any acquisition or merger of the Company, if such
transaction involves a change of control. 
 As a key member of the Executive Management team, you will have the primary day-to-day
responsibility to oversee all legal matters, including corporate governance, intellectual property, litigation and security compliance, as well as government affairs. You will also be the Corporate Collaboration Leader. You will work with executives
to accomplish a share purpose and to advance business goals in a timely manner. 
 You will be entitled to receive the Company’s
employee benefits made available to other employees at your level to the full extent of your eligibility, once such benefits are established. 

Your employment will be subject to your execution of the Company’s standard form of Employee Agreement (relating to non-disclosure of
confidential information and assignment of inventions to the Company), a copy of which is available upon request. 
 If this offer meets
your approval, please confirm your acceptance by signing a copy of this letter below and confirming your first date of employment. This offer is valid for six (6) business days following your receipt of this letter; and assumes a proposed start
date not later than January 12, 









 Robert D. Cochran 

1/4/2012 
  Page
 2
 
  

 
2012. The terms and conditions of this offer letter supersede any prior written or oral communications to you concerning employment at the Company. 

I look forward to a favorable reply and to welcoming you to A10 Networks, Inc. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Lee Chen

	
	Lee Chen
	President and CEO


  

			
	Acknowledged and accepted:
	
	 /s/ Robert D. Cochran

	Robert D. Cochran
		
	Date:	 	 1/5/12


  

			
		
	Start Date:	 	 1/12/12
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 of Network CN Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Earnest Leung, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Earnest LeungEarnest LeungChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





March 18, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Network CN Inc. and will be retained by Network CN Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
| Area Code/County                   | Count |
|------------------------------------|-------|
| 701  North Dakota                  | 4028  |
| Adams North Dakota                 | 6     |
| Barnes North Dakota                | 62    |
| Benson North Dakota                | 6     |
| Billings North Dakota              | 7     |
| Bottineau North Dakota             | 48    |
| Bowman North Dakota                | 7     |
| Burke North Dakota                 | 4     |
| Burleigh North Dakota              | 899   |
| Cass North Dakota                  | 1754  |
| Cavalier North Dakota              | 30    |
| Dickey North Dakota                | 32    |
| Divide North Dakota                | 4     |
| Dunn North Dakota                  | 39    |
| Eddy North Dakota                  | 11    |
| Emmons North Dakota                | 8     |
| Foster North Dakota                | 27    |
| Golden Valley North Dakota         | 35    |
| Grand Forks North Dakota           | 698   |
| Grant North Dakota                 | 6     |
| Griggs North Dakota                | 3     |
| Hettinger North Dakota             | 10    |
| Kidder North Dakota                | 3     |
| Lamoure North Dakota               | 16    |
| Logan North Dakota                 | 5     |
| McHenry North Dakota               | 51    |
| McIntosh North Dakota              | 22    |
| McKenzie North Dakota              | 44    |
| McLean North Dakota                | 61    |
| Mercer North Dakota                | 64    |
| Morton North Dakota                | 175   |
| Mountrail North Dakota             | 62    |
| Nelson North Dakota                | 14    |
| No Zip Code Reported, North Dakota | 29    |
| Oliver North Dakota                | 5     |
| Pembina North Dakota               | 51    |
| Pierce North Dakota                | 18    |
| Ramsey North Dakota                | 48    |
| Ransom North Dakota                | 37    |
| Renville North Dakota              | 60    |
| Richland North Dakota              | 173   |
| Rolette North Dakota               | 32    |
| Sargent North Dakota               | 23    |
| Sheridan North Dakota              | 14    |
| Slope North Dakota                 | 5     |
| Stark North Dakota                 | 197   |
| Steele North Dakota                | 18    |
| Stutsman North Dakota              | 112   |
| Towner North Dakota                | 3     |
| Traill North Dakota                | 56    |
| Walsh North Dakota                 | 90    |
| Ward North Dakota                  | 445   |
| Wells North Dakota                 | 19    |
| Williams North Dakota              | 205   |
* 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 December 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40822 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REYNALDO MORALES-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-50-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Reynaldo MoralesGutierrez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.