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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

AMY FRENCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (1:09-cr-00118-1)

Submitted: January 4, 2013 Decided: January 16, 2013

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, 

Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth 

Goodwin II, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM

Amy French appeals the nine-month sentence imposed 

upon revocation of her supervised release. On appeal, French 

contends that her nine-month sentence is plainly unreasonable. 

We affirm. 

We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation 

of supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory 

maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. 

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).* In determining 

whether a revocation sentence is unreasonable, “we follow 

generally the procedural and substantive considerations” used in 

reviewing original sentences. Id. at 438. Only if we conclude 

that the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable 

must we decide whether it is plainly so. United States v. 

Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).

French’s sentence is below the statutory maximum of 

twenty-four months for a Class C felony. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3) (2006). Further, the sentence is procedurally 

reasonable because the district court considered both the 

Chapter 7 policy statements and the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 

Supp. 2011) factors that it was permitted to consider. See

 * We decline French’s invitation to revisit the “plainly 

unreasonable” test established by our decision in Crudup.
3

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. Finally, the sentence is 

substantively reasonable, because the district court 

sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the sentence, 

emphasizing the breach of trust that French had committed by 

coming before the district court again after a previous 

violation of her supervised release and French’s apparent 

inability to remain in court-mandated drug treatment.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Royal G. RAY and Morrison Assurance Company, etc., Petitioners, v. Jerry Wayne EARL and American Fire and Indemnity Company, Respondents.

No. 43845.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 10, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 277 So.2d 73.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Joe FASON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-923.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,041
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (784)
<INVENTORY>                                     81,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,730
<PP&E>                                         118,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (51,171)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 243,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,391
<BONDS>                                         49,925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,549
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,239
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   243,444
<SALES>                                        204,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               204,812
<CGS>                                          120,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  184,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,758
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,315
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,916
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,399
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (543)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,856
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.68
        

</TABLE>
#### William A. FIELD et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 104500]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Franz Marc and August Macke: 1909-1914,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Neue Galerie New York, in New York, New York, from on or about October 4, 2018, until on or about January 21, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Marie Therese Porter Royce,

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-17432 Filed 8-13-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6457

STEVEN MARTINEZ , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. BRYAN M. ANTONELLI, Warden USP Hazelton; WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. Gina M. Groh , Chief District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv - 00059

- GMG )

Submitted : June 18, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Steven Martinez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Steven Martinez , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s o rder accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Martinez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (201 8 ) petition in which he sought to challenge his convictions and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018)

. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions and sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his det ention

. Here, the district court correctly determined that Martinez may not challenge the validity of his convictions and sentence through a § 2241 petition, as the conduct for which he was convicted remains criminal, In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333

- 34 (4th Cir. 2000), and he failed to identify a retroactive c hange in the substantive law affecting his sentence, United States v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Martinez v. Antonelli , No. 3:19

- cv - 00059

- GMG (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 11, 2020) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
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

Each of the undersigned officers of
Income Opportunity Realty Investors, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that:



| | (i) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 fairly presents in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, at and for the period indicated.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                                                                    
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | INCOME OPPORTUNITY INVESTORS, INC.                                 
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 13, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Daniel J. Moos  
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Daniel J. Moos                                                     
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | President and Chief Operating Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 13, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Gene S. Bertcher
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Gene S. Bertcher                                                   
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 05, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 05, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0050. JOHNNY EDWARD SMITH v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

1988CR08395
### From: raylin martin [mailto:tiny;:wiationent(wlive.com] 

### Sent: Tuesday, J,une 26, 2012 2:58 PM 

### To: EAS (OST) 

### Subject: EAS Docket DOT-OST-2000-8556

. 

# . . ' Dear DOT, 

### ·' At this timeTiny Aviation Enterprises ( "tinyair" ) will not be entering a bid for the EAS contractforAdak, Alaska. I am not putting in a bid fortwo reasons, firstthe time required to obtain DOT Public Conveyance Permit (Up to six months) and second the time required to getmy FAA Part 121 Air Carrier Certificate from the FAA ( Over ayear

## J.
I am continuing to worktowards getting my airline up and running, and hope to be able to bid on the next EAS Contract Bid forAdak, Alaska. Thank you. Very best regards, Raylin Martin TinyAviation Enterprises ( "tiny air" ) ,;-.
.. 704-830-6970 ;nyaviationente,d)live.com
No. 11472.

#### The City of Columbus et al. *v.*Stephenson et al.

Decided January 18, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. George S.*Marshall, city solicitor, and *Messrs.*Weinland, *Hoover, Carter & Davies,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Arnold, Morion & Irvine*and *Messrs. Marriott, Belcher & Connors,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Davis, Spiauck and Price, JJ., concur. Summers, C. J., dissents.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Miscellaneous
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-TPS.16 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030/763-3762 (fax)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2012 New on the Census Bureau Website: Research@Census This new Web page is a gateway to the world of research at the Census Bureau. Visit the site to learn about innovations to measure and understand America through improved statistics, statistical products and analysis. The new blog — “Research Matters” — features the work of researchers from all areas of the Census Bureau. Research ranges from substantive topics of interest in demography, economics and other social sciences to methodological questions, such as the role of statistical modeling in surveys, designs for the 10-year census, research on record linkage and confidentiality protection. Census Bureau researchers include geographers, statisticians, economists, demographers and more. Internet address: <https://www.census.gov/research> **No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             142                      39
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,339                   1,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                        58                      47
<INVENTORY>                                        827                     818
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,405                   2,188
<PP&E>                                           3,462                   3,440
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,497                   1,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,435                   6,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,312                   2,347
<BONDS>                                          2,053                   1,818
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                        157                     180
<COMMON>                                            98                      49
<OTHER-SE>                                         726                     813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,435                   6,100
<SALES>                                          8,413                   8,438
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                            4,562                   4,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,226                   7,572
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 166                     162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,021                     704
<INCOME-TAX>                                       352                     250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                640                     429
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                      11
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                         (17)                    (13)
<NET-INCOME>                                       624                     344
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.14                    1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.09                    1.15


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.0













CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




The Board
of Directors


CPI
Corp.:







We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
333-153132, No. 333-142077, No. 333-124611, No. 333-08634, No. 333-08636, No.
333-64296, and No. 33-19981 on Forms S-8 of CPI Corp. of our reports dated April
21, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of CPI Corp. and
subsidiaries as of February 7, 2009 and February 2, 2008, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended February 7, 2009, and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of February 7,
2009, which reports appear in the February 7, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of
CPI Corp.









/s/ KPMG
LLP


KPMG
LLP




St.
Louis, Missouri


April 21,
2009
November 2, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I, Gjeret D Stein, President of Sensible Gurus LLC, hereby submit this petition for 

exemption under Section 333; FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 

Public Law 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333.

I request this exemption in order to operate an UAV/UAS, DJI Phantom 3 

Professional Quadcopter Aircraft, in order to provide services for profit to include 

aerial photography, aerial cinematography, aerial filming and photography for real 

estate, construction firms, agricultural modeling, crop monitoring operations, 

aerial mapping, special events to include but not limited to weddings, private or 

public parties/events, business advertising, promotional events, geological 

surveying, and environmental studies.

The ability to provide these services to other local businesses and individuals in 

my community will benefit them by opening up opportunities they otherwise did 

not have before. Traditional methods of aerial photography/videography are 

simply not viable options for the average consumer as they are costly and 

involve greater risks to everyone involved; i.e. the use of larger aircraft carrying 

humans and flammable fuel. By utilizing the UAV/UAS the same results can be 

achieved with much safer conditions.

Prior to each flight/operation of the UAV/UAS, a Pre-Flight Safety Inspection will 

be conducted. 

Any and all repairs will be performed only by the manufacturers authorized repair 

facilities / providers. Flights will not take place over densely populated areas or 

private property without the owners permission. The UAV/UAS will only be 

operated within visual line of sight and will not be flown near airports or above 

400 feet. The FAA can be confident that operations of this UAV/UAS will achieve 

at least the equivalent or greater level of safety.

262-439-8228

gstein@sgurus.com

Sensible Gurus

Attn: Gjeret Stein

245 Regency Ct #104

Brookfield WI 53045

SENSIBLE GURUS LLC
The requests of this petition are similar to those of Mr. Jase W. Robak, Mr. Todd 

Thomas Drone Pics, and Mr. Mike Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, all of whom have 

received Section 333 exemptions for comparable aircraft for similar operations.

The specific sections of 14 C.F.R from which we are seeking exemption are as 

follows:

14 C.F.R. Part 21;

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4), & (5);

14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 61.133 (a);

14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) & (c);

14 C.F.R 91.7(a)

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2);

14C.F.R. 91.109(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.119;

14 C.F.R. 91.121;

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1);

14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(2};

14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b).

Please find the included User Manual, Quick Start Guide, Safety Guide, and 

Intelligent Flight Battery Safety Guide.

I truly thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gjeret Stein, President

Sensible Gurus LLC

245 Regency Ct #104

Brookfield WI 53045