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[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 19-13927

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NATHANIEL FIELDS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:05-cr-00037-RV-EMT-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 19-13927 Date Filed: 11/29/2022 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 19-13927

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In 2019, Nathaniel Fields, a federal prisoner, filed a motion 

for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018. 

The district court granted Fields’s motion in part and imposed a 

lesser sentence. But the court declined Fields’s invitation to recalculate his Guidelines range without a career-offender designation 

under the intervening changes to the Sentencing Guidelines. Fields 

appealed, and we affirmed, relying on our decision in United States 

v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080, 1089 (11th Cir. 2020).

The United States Supreme Court vacated our judgment in 

this case and remanded for further proceedings in light of its opinion in Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022). Fields 

v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2900 (2022). Concepcion abrogated our 

decision in Denson and held that “the First Step Act allows district 

courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising 

their discretion to reduce a sentence pursuant to the First Step 

Act.” 142 S. Ct. at 2404. And because district courts must “consider 

nonfrivolous arguments presented by the parties, the First Step Act 

requires district courts to consider intervening changes when parties raise them.” Id. at 2396. “By its terms, however, the First Step 

Act does not compel courts to exercise their discretion to reduce 

any sentence based on those arguments.” Id.

USCA11 Case: 19-13927 Date Filed: 11/29/2022 Page: 2 of 3
19-13927 Opinion of the Court 3

Concepcion instructs that district courts ruling on First Step 

Act motions “bear the standard obligation to explain their decisions,” and accordingly must give a “brief statement of reasons” to 

“demonstrate that they considered the parties’ arguments.” Id. at 

2404. “All that the First Step Act requires is that a district court 

make clear that it reasoned through the parties’ arguments.” Id.

(alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the district court’s order indicates that the court considered the parties’ arguments, including Fields’s argument that 

changes in theGuidelines weighed in favor of a sentence reduction. 

But the order does not state whether the court understood that it 

was permitted to consider intervening changes to the Sentencing 

Guidelines. See id. at 2396, 2404. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand this case for further consideration in light of Concepcion.

 

VACATED and REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 19-13927 Date Filed: 11/29/2022 Page: 3 of 3
BUYING COMPLEX SERVICES 

MADE EASY

OASIS, OASIS Small Business (SB), and OASIS 8(a) 

are multiple award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite 

Quantity (IDIQ) contracts that provide flexible and 

innovative solutions for complex professional 

services. These Tier 3, Best-in-Class (BIC) 

solutions make procuring complex professional 

services expedient by maximizing streamlined 

acquisition processes.

FLEXIBLE AND TIME SAVING

BY THE NUMBERS (FY 2015 - FY 2021)

LEARN MORE: www.gsa.gov/oasis

CORE DISCIPLINES

● Engineering services 

● Scientific services 

● Logistic services 

● Financial services 

● Management consulting 

services 

● Program management

● Research and development 

BEST IN CLASS 

PROFILE: BMO

BEST IN CLASS PROFILE:

● All contract types & hybrids on single task order

● Multiple disciplines and mission spaces

● Maximum flexibility for ancillary support such as 

Other Direct Costs and labor and materials

● FAR Part 16.5 Streamlined Acquisition Procedures

● Commercial and non-commercial acquisition

● No Protests under $10 Million

● No FAR Part 15.3 “Source Selection Procedures”

$43B Obligations

3,000+ Task Orders

40% $ Obligated to SB

70% Task Orders to SB

Use the OASIS Dashboard to explore OASIS 

data by federal agency and industry partner; 

build and download customized reports.

Use Steps to Performance-Based Acquisition

(SPBA) to walk through the eight steps of 

performance- based acquisition, including 

templates and resources.

Find awarded prices to use in negotiations for 

labor contracts and use the price estimating tool 

to develop the labor portion of the independent 

government cost estimate.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00020

- CV

CARRIE M. LEO v. TYLER C. THOMAS AND NICHOLAS STACEY

On Appeal from the 444th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- DCL

- 01028

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, hav ing considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 3, 2022
# Official Journal C 237/21 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 237 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6021 July 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 237

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6021 July 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 237/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 237/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Warren J. LOUIS.

No. 62727.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Warren J. Louis, applying for remedial writ. Parish of Lafayette.

Writ denied.
# C_2020304EN.01001801.xml

| 14.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/18

---

Action brought on 14 July 2020 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of black circles placed over an orange square)

(Case T-455/20)

(2020/C 304/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of black circles placed over an orange square) — European Union trade mark No 14 784 375

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2020 in Case R 2385/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### HICKLIN GOULD *vs.*JAMES DUTTON.

A probate is necessary in an action against an administrator, though the suit was brought against the deceased in his lifetime.

Assumpsit. Narr. Pleas. Issue. Death of the defendant suggested, and his executor made a party of record.

The action was upon a note of hand which plaintiff proved, and rested.

*Mr. Wales,*for defendant,

moved a nonsuit for want of a *probate.*

*Gilpin.*

Probate is not necsssary. The action was brought before the death of Dutton, and the case at issue ; not, therefore, a case within the mischief of the act requiring probates before an executor shall pay demands against him as executor. The demand was made against the deceased. This court decided to that effect in *Cleaver’s adm’r.*vs. *Starr.*

*Mr. Hamilton*

suggested, that that was the case of an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, rendered against the appellant’s testator in his life time.

*Per Curiam.*

J. M. Clayton, *Chief Justice:*

Show us your authority. I can ■well understand the propriety of such a decision on appeal, or in a scire facias where the judgment was rendered against the party in his lifetime. But the act of assembly expressly provides that “ before an executor or administrator shall pay any debt demanded as due from the deceased, the person holding such debt shall make affidavit declaring upon oath or affirmation, that nothing has been paid or delivered towards satisfaction of said debt, except what is mentioned, and that the sum demanded is justly and truly due. *Digest 226.*I can see no reason why the estate should not be protected by probate from *demands*against the executor, in suits brought before the testator’s death, but not prosecuted to judgment, as well as in suits brought against the executor himself. If Mr. Gilpin thinks upon reflection that we are wrong, we will hear a motion during the term to take off the nonsuit, and he can then produce the authority cited.

Harrington, *Judge,*

was absent, and the court asked the late chief justice Thomas Clayton, if any decision had been made to the effect stated. “ He did not recollect any precise decision, but whilst on the bench he entertained the opinion, taking the present law in connection with the old one, (1 *Del. Laws,*421,) that a probate in such case was not necessary.”

*473
      *Gilpin,*for plaintiff,

*Wales,*for defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

We adhere to our opinion. The language of the act under which we are now acting, is as express as words can make it. And it additionally enjoins that ,f if affidavit, as required by this section, be not produced in an action against an- exeuutor or administrator for a debt against the deceased, the court shall on motion, give judgment of nonsuit. This is an action against an administrator, he having been made a party, though the suit was not originally instituted against him.

Let the nonsuit be entered,
----

(2004/C 84 E/0743)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0703/04

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Member State contributions to the Community Budget

The contributions made by each Member State to the EU budget are either less than 1 % of their national income, or very slightly more.

Given that the Community Budget is essential for the EU to achieve balanced development and cohesion, and to pursue the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, why do these contributions have to go on counting towards each Member State's deficit?

If they did not, is it not the case that the need to plug the national budgetary deficit by cutting contributions to the Community Budget would cease to be a pretext for preventing an increase in revenue for the new EU financial prospective for 2007-2013?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

The EC Treaty obliges Member States to avoid excessive deficit positions (defined as general government deficit below a reference value of 3 % of gross domestic product (GDP)). The concept of ‘general government’ is defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts (1) in the Community (2), and the corresponding statistical data requirements are the ones in ESA95. All the expenditures included within the ‘general government’ definition do have a bearing on the excessive deficit. Member States' contributions to the EU budget are part of the expenditure of ‘general government’.

The Commission does not support any proposals to exclude specific spending items from the calculation of expenditures of ‘general government’. However, in order to achieve the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, it is important to increase the quality of public expenditures by redirecting public spending towards growth-enhancing cost-effective public spending. The Commission has regularly recommended in the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines to redirect public spending along these lines and this has indeed always been supported by the Parliament and the Council. Redirecting public expenditure would, therefore, enhance the contribution of both national and EU budgets to the achievement of Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives.

----

(1)  ESA95.

(2)OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

----
#### Johnny Wayne LUMLEY, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42857.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 17, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 265 So.2d 746.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
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 Integrated Data Corp (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Abe
Carmel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of Integrated Data Corp.


Date:  March 7, 2007           By:  /s/ Abe Carmel
                                    --------------
                                    Abe Carmel
                                    Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Integrated Data Corp. and
will be retained by Integrated Data Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

<Table>
<Caption>
SUBSIDIARIES                                                        JURISDICTION
------------                                                        ------------
<S>                                                                 <C>
SkillSoft Corporation ...........................................     Delaware
SmartForce Limited ..............................................      Ireland
SmartForce UK Limited ...........................................      England
SkillSoft UK Limited ............................................      England
SkillSoft Australasia Pty Ltd ...................................     Australia
Books24x7.com, Inc. .............................................     Delaware
CBT Finance Limited .............................................   Grand Cayman
CBT Technology Limited ..........................................      Ireland
SmartForce Canada Ltd ...........................................      Canada
SmartForce Mentoring Group Ltd ..................................      Canada
SmartForce Business Skills Ltd ..................................      Ireland
SmartCertify Direct, Inc. .......................................      Florida
M2S Prokoda GmbH ................................................      Germany
SkillSoft International Holding Corporation .....................     Delaware
SmartForce Australia Pty Ltd ....................................     Australia
</Table>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1
                                                                                
                                  PSINet Inc.
                                        
Calculation of Basic and Diluted Loss per Share and Weighted Average Shares Used
                               in Calculation (1)
                                        
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                               Year Ended
                                                                                            December 31, 1998
                                                                                            -----------------
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
<S>                                                                                <C>
    Shares outstanding at beginning of year......................................                  40,477,786
    Weighted average shares issued during the year ended December 31, 1998                          9,327,831
     (11,605,853 shares).........................................................               -------------
                                                                                                   49,805,617
                                                                                                =============
Net loss available to common shareholders........................................               $(264,948,000)
                                                                                                =============
Basic and diluted loss per share.................................................               $       (5.32)
                                                                                                =============
</TABLE>
_____________
(1)  For a description of basic and diluted loss per share, see Note 1 of the
     Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8
     of this Form 10-K.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 05317

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

05317\05317_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 05317\05317_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05317\05317_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05317\05317_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05317\05317_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05317\05317_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05317\05317_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05317\05317_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05317\05317_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

05317\Certificate Statement Plant ID_05317.pdf Plant certification statement

x 05317\Supporting Documentation\05317_Attachment 1_Part A_Sec. 5_A5-2.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05317\Supporting Documentation\05317_Attachment 1_Part F_Sec. 5_F5-6.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05317\Supporting Documentation\05317_Attachment 2_Part F_Sec. 5_F5-6.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05317\Supporting Documentation\Attachment 2_Part A_Sec. 5_A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05317\05317_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 05317\05317_Checklist_Template_091710_version12.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05317\05317_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Industrial Commission of Ohio *v.*Vail. Industrial Commission of Ohio *v.*Kenemy.

*Workmen's compensation*— Appeal *■ to common pleas court*— Ev*idence not limited to record*— Amended *Section 1465-90, General Code*— Pending *action*— Section *28, General Code.*

(Nos. 18148 and 18149

Decided May 13, 1924.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. Edward C. Stanton,*prosecuting attorney; *Mr. George C. Hansen; Mr. G. C. Grabbe,*attorney general, and *Mr. B. B. Zurmehly,*for plaintiff in error in No. 18148.

*Mr. A. C. Hasse,*for defendant in error.

*Mr. Edward C. Stanton,*prosecuting attorney; *Mr. George C. Hansen; Mr. C. C. Crabbe,*attorney general, and *Mr. R. R. Zurmehly,*for plaintiff in error, in No. 18149.

*Messrs. Landfear, Baskin & Fleharty,*for defendant in error.

By the Court.

An application for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Gen. Code, Sections 1465-37 to 1465-108) filed with the Industrial Commission of Ohio prior to August 16, 1921, the date the amendment to Section 1465-90, General Code, became effective, is a proceeding, within the provisions of Section 26, General Code, which ripens into an action upon an appeal from a denial of such claim by the Industrial Com*305mission, and the amendment is not applicable in the trial of such action.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in both cases.

*Judgments affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.

Wanamaker, J., not participating.