alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2339

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Santiago Espinoza-Rodriguez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 18, 2011

Filed: March 10, 2011 

___________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Santiago Espinoza-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry into

the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326. In so doing, he

also admitted to violating the terms and conditions of his supervised release imposed

as a result of an earlier 2008 conviction for illegal reentry. On May 25, 2010, the

district court1

 conducted a sentencing hearing and sentenced Espinoza-Rodriguez to

twenty-one months' imprisonment on the new reentry charge and five months'

imprisonment on the supervised release violation, to run consecutively. Espinoza-
-2-

Rodriguez appeals this sentence, arguing that the district court procedurally erred in

failing to accord proper weight to several aggravating and mitigating factors and that

this procedural error resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007). More specifically,

Espinoza-Rodriguez claims that the district court abused its discretion by giving too

much weight to his criminal history and not enough weight to the mitigating factors

in his case, including: (1) the detrimental impact his incarceration will have on his

family, who he was supporting; (2) the evidence in the record indicating that he has

been substantially free of criminal activity since his last serious felony in 2005; and

(3) the reality that twenty-six months is more than twice the length of his longest prior

sentence. We disagree.

As the sentencing transcript reveals, the district court sentenced EspinozaRodriguez on both the new conviction and the violation of his supervised release after

thoroughly considering all of the § 3553(a) factors, including Espinoza-Rodriguez's

lengthy criminal history, his work history, and his efforts to support his family.

Consequently, we can discern no procedural error. See United States v. Battiest, 553

F.3d 1132, 1135–36 (8th. Cir. 2009). We also can discern no substantive error in the

final sentence. The district court sentenced Espinoza-Rodriguez within the applicable

guideline ranges, and as such, we may and do presume that his sentence is reasonable.

United States v. Hoffman, 626 F.3d 993, 998 (8th Cir. 2010). Here, there is nothing

in the record sufficient to overcome this presumption of reasonableness, especially

since Espinoza-Rodriguez decided to reenter this country while still on supervised

release from his last conviction of illegal reentry. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

______________________________
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1557. CLAYTON LEE v. KYOUNG HEE KIM PERESTA.

ClaytonLee filed suit against Kyoung Hee KimPeresta inmagistrate court, and

Peresta asserted several counterclaims against Lee. The case was transferred to the

superior court, which entered an order granting Peresta’s motion for directed verdict

as to all of Lee’s claims. Lee then filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

“In a case involvingmultiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not

a final judgment.” Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385

SE2d 731) (1989) (punctuation omitted). Under such circumstances, there must be

either an express determination that there is no just reason for delay under OCGA

§ 9-11-54 (b) or compliance with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (b). See id. “Where neither of these code sections are followed, the appeal

is premature and must be dismissed.” Id. (punctuation omitted).

The record does not indicate that the superior court directed the entry of

judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or that the court has resolved Peresta’s

counterclaims against Lee. Consequently, because this action remains pending below,

Lee was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a

certificate of immediate review from the trial court – to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34

(b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). Lee’s failure to do

so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833

(471 SE2d 213) (1996).

June 21, 2022
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

06/21/2022
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

EF/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

EDGAR GONZALEZ SERRANO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50172

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01478-PA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Edgar Gonzalez Serrano appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 30-

month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following

FILED

MAR 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EF/Research 2 09-50172

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Serrano’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No

pro se supplemental brief has been filed, but the government has filed a motion for

summary affirmance.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The government’s motion is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1.1



Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Eugene R. McGrath, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the Company) certify that the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, which this statement accompanies, (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    Eugene R. McGrathEugene R. McGrath




Dated: February 24, 2005
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lonnie C. JACOBS.

No. 61380.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: Lonnie C. Jacobs applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Jackson.

Writ denied.
October 19, 2015

Ms

. Lynn Surrey

VisionAir Imaging, LLC

6764 Foxboro Court

Brighton, MI 48116

- 9172

Dear Ms

. Surrey :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your July 23, 2015, exemption request on behalf of VisionAir Imaging, LLC

filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3111 , but we are unable to process your request any further.

Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to

consider the reques t any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of t he exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
Exhibit 10.24.1  Description of Terms of Separation Arrangement for Cheryl W. Grisé  Mrs. Grisé has announced her plans to retire from the Company on July 1, 2007. In determining the date of her retirement, the Company entered into an agreement in principle with Mrs. Grisé to assure that she would remain with the Company until at least July 1, 2007 in order to ensure an orderly transition of her responsibilities.   As part of the agreement in principle, Mrs. Grisé affirmed the commitments previously made under her employment agreement, including an agreement that, for two years following her retirement, she generally may not engage in activities on behalf of certain competitors, solicit certain employees or interfere with the Company's business relationships.   In consideration of these factors and the other terms of the agreement in principle, the Company will provide Mrs. Grisé with a special retirement benefit which, when combined with her annual benefit under the Retirement Plan and the Supplemental Plan, will provide an approximate annual benefit of $644,000.  Under the agreement in principle, Mrs. Grisé will also be eligible for a lump sum cash payment of roughly $120,000 in lieu of receiving a grant of Restricted Share Units (RSUs)  or Performance Cash under the 2007-2009 long-term incentive program.  The agreement in principle also contains a standard general release of all claims against the Company in connection with Mrs. Grisé's employment.
#### John J. TIMMINS et al., Petitioners, v. GORE NEWSPAPERS COMPANY, etc. and Mary Alice Firestone, Respondents.

No. 43133.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 13, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 29, 1973. .

Certiorari denied. 267 So.2d 891.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION AT MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         398,033
<SECURITIES>                                 5,040,264
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,569,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          600,402
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,968,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,569,295
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (53,220)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (53,220)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (53,220)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (12)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of First Investors Financial Services, Inc., (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tommy A. Moore,Jr., 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 of2002, that:

 

(1)                   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Act of 1934; and

(2)                   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: Sept 14, 2005

 
|   | By: /s/ Tommy A. Moore, Jr. |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   | Tommy A. Moore, Jr.         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer     |

 

----
#### Beazell *v.*State of Ohio et al.

*Criminal law*— Separate *trials upon joint indictment discretionary vnth court*— Defendant’s *right in remedy or manner of trial not vested*— Statute *amended after crime committed and before trial conducted*— Constitutional *law.*

(No. 18630

Decided December 19, 1924.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county.

*Messrs. Pogue, Eoffheimer & Pogue,*and *Mr. Walter M. Locke,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Charles 8. Bell,*prosecuting attorney; *Mr. Nelson Schwab*and *Mr. Louis Schneider,*assistant prosecuting attorneys, for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that this court does assume jurisdiction in deciding that it is discretionary for the trial judge to allow separate trials for those jointly indicted for the offense charged in the indictment therein, that the same applies to the remedy and manner of trial and the defendant George H. Beazell, plaintiff in error herein, has no vested right in the remedy or manner of trial provided by law, even though same may have been different at the date of the commission of the offense, and it is further ordered and adjudged that the record contains a constitutional question involving Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, and this court having reviewed said question upon its merits, and all other errors assigned by the plaintiff in *839error herein, does find that there is no error upon the record in said proceedings and judgment.

It is, therefore, considered by the court that the judgment aforesaid of the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county, Ohio, be and the same hereby is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Conn, JJ., concur.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0289

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: C.K., A Youth in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classifie d for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Elizabeth Best, District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 15 2021

12/15/2021
Case Number: DA 21-0289
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Charles E. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Proliance
International, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2006                      /s/ Charles E. Johnson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Charles E. Johnson
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
```
Overall DVD Folder Organization

File Name File Size (bytes) File Type Description
DVD Documentation.xls 187,392 xls This file. A complete listing of files included on the Inland TSD Data #2 DVD, approximate file size, file ty pe and description. CHLOR_ST.DBF 36,864 dbf List of stations with chlorophy ll data in canal analy sis. notim pair.dbf 6,144 dbf List of all sites in canal analy sis that were outside impaired W BIDs by at least 1,000 m stat_531.dbf 21,504 dbf List of sites used in canal analy sis (n=531) and corresponding lat/lng WB ID_NUT.DBF 237,568 dbf List of all W BIDs that were identified as nutrient impaired (used in canal analy sis) edacda_sagt.dbf 27,648 dbf NOAA's Coastal Assessment Framework organization of estuaries EPANutrientW atershedRegions.zip 932,864 zip Compressed shapefile of EPA nutrient watershed regions 

### Inland TSD (Technical Support Document) Data #2:

File List and Description EPA Docket Number EPA -HQ-OW-2009-0596 This DVD consists of data used in developing the Florida Inland W aters nutrient criteria technical support document. A copy of these files is available for review in the EPA reading room. Files included are described in the table below.

04) Canals

05) GIS Shapefiles Inland TSD Data #2



### Note: File siz e is approximate. Page 1 of 1