alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-11073

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

COREY HOLMES, also known as Blue,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-89-2

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Corey Holmes appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his

supervised release on the basis, inter alia, that he possessed a controlled

substance and failed to submit to drug testing. The district court imposed a 24-

month sentence to “serve as punishment and deterrence as well as protection of

the public from further criminal activity.” Holmes contends that the court erred

in light of United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 132

S. Ct. 496 (2011). We review for plain error because Holmes failed to preserve

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 23, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-11073 Document: 00511930254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2012
No. 11-11073

the purported Miller error in the district court. See United States v. Whitelaw,

580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009).

In Miller, we held that it is improper for a district court to rely on the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors, which include punishment, for the modification

or revocation of a term of supervised release because Congress deliberately

omitted that subsection from the first clause of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). 634 F.3d at

844. Unlike the revocation under § 3583(e) at issue in Miller, the revocation of

Holmes’s term of supervised release was mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g).

Because § 3583(g) does not expressly invoke the § 3553(a) factors or the limits

imposed by the first clause of § 3583(e), we find no clear or obvious error under

Miller. See United States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1095-97 (5th Cir. 1994); see

also United States v. Ibanez, 454 F. App’x 328, 330 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied,

132 S. Ct. 1981 (2012).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED 

2

Case: 11-11073 Document: 00511930254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2012
EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Each subsidiary's equity is wholly owned by the registrant either directly or 
indirectly through wholly-owned corporate general partners of limited 
partnerships.
Name of Subsidiary    Type of Entity      Jurisdiction of organization

Stillwater Corporation   corporation                 Delaware

Stillwater Hydro          limited                    New York
Partners, L.P.          partnership

RW Partners, L.P.         limited                    Delaware
                        partnership

Brea Power (I), Inc      corporation                 Delaware

Brea Power Partners,      limited                    Delaware
L.P.                    partnership

Olinda, L.L.C.          limited liability            Delaware
                        company
# C_2017349EN.01008601.xml

| 17.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/86

---

P8_TA(2015)0328

Subjecting 25I-NBOMe, AH-7921, MDPV and methoxetamine to control measures *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 October 2015 on the draft Council implementing decision on subjecting 4-iodo- 2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures (10011/2015 — C8-0185/2015 — 2014/0183(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2017/C 349/17)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Council draft (10011/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council draft (10011/2015),

| — | having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on Transitional Provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0185/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on Transitional Provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0185/2015),

| — | having regard to Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,

1

| — | having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0264/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0264/2015),

| 1. | Approves the Council draft; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Council draft;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 127, 20.5.2005, p. 32.

1

---
#### Dmitri Joseph HADDAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-715.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 26, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 6, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          53,460
<SECURITIES>                                    12,045
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,061
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,217
<PP&E>                                          49,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 260,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           214
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   260,619
<SALES>                                        170,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,035
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  150,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,133
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,033
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,033
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51


</TABLE>
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT



To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
FSF Financial Corp. and Subsidiaries
Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350

We have  audited the  consolidated  statements  of  financial  condition  of FSF
Financial Corp. and Subsidiaries  (the Corporation) as of September 30, 2000 and
the related consolidated statements of income,  comprehensive income, changes in
stockholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the two years in the  period
ended September 30, 2000. Those financial  statements are the  responsibility of
the  Corporation's  management.  Our  responsibility is to express an opinion on
those financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted  our audits in accordance  with U.S.  generally  accepted  auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material  respects,  the consolidated  financial position of FSF Financial Corp.
and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2000 and the consolidated  results of their
operations  and their cash  flows for each of the  fiscal  years in the two year
period ended  September  30, 2000, in conformity  with U.S.  generally  accepted
accounting principles.


/s/Bertram Cooper & Co. LLP
---------------------------

Bertram Cooper & Co. LLP
Waseca, Minnesota
October 25, 2000
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 374

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent double-counting

of income in the conduct of needs analysis for student assistance under

that Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. SOLOMOM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent

double-counting of income in the conduct of needs analysis for student assistance under that Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PREVENTION OF DOUBLE-COUNTING OF IN4 COME IN ASSET COMPUTATIONS.

5 (a) PELL GRANT PROGRAM.—Section 411F(2) of the

6 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a–6(2))

7 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

8 ‘‘No property (or interest therein) shall be treated as an

9 asset of an individual or family if that individual or family
2

•HR 374 IH

1 has obtained that property or interest with funds that are

2 treated, for purposes of this subpart, as part of that indi3 vidual’s or family’s effective family income.’’.

4 (b) OTHER STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.—Sec5 tion 480(g) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(g)) is amended

6 by adding at the end thereof the following: ‘‘No property

7 (or interest therein) shall be treated as part of the net

8 worth of an individual or family if that individual or family

9 has obtained that property or interest with funds that are

10 treated, for purposes of this part, as part of that individ11 ual’s or family’s available income.’’.

12 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

13 The amendments made by this Act shall be effective

14 for academic years beginning after the date of enactment

15 of this Act.

Æ
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 Quarterly Report of Apple REIT Ten, Inc., (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned
hereby certifies, 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 and
Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of March 31, 2011, and for the period then ended.

|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|/s/     GLADE M. KNIGHT | 
|                        | 
|Glade M. Knight         | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 
|                        | 
|May 6, 2011             | 
|                        | 
|/s/     BRYAN PEERY     | 
|                        | 
|Bryan Peery             | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 
|                        | 
|May 6, 2011             | 

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18792]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: August 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 24, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 72 to 
Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2018-214, CP2018-296.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-18792 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Sharron Umoh, Appellant

No. 06-18-00007-CV v.

Good Shepherd Medical Center Marshall, 

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2016-

10,155-CCL). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of prosecution. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Sharron Umoh, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 10, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Bernard D. RUMPF et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 39884.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 5, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 235 So.2d 341.

DREW, Acting C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
### (-~

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 (Docket No. FAA-2010-0479j Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-220-AD; Amendme t 

# If·lf7J- JHJ- "" 39- If,**; AD 2010-**-**] 

# 7(~ ~OLII'ING£YMUOL RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes ./l/,tVI-fO j 

## '?1jze;/t))
OUTING :;YM60~ 

## lj,vNj-lCO AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT).
OU'I1~ SYMFl ACTION: Final rule. l~mAL£lSIG SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products lis ed above. This AD results from mandatory continumg airworthiness information (MeAL) 'OUT[~G ,VMBOL originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correct an unsafe rNlmLS,SJG condition on an aviation product. The MeAl des!cribesthe unsafe condition as: lAre


## * * * 

## * * 

## * * ROIJTI~q ,VM80L Recently, abrake fire was reported whic~ was caused by aruptured brake piston. The fire was quickly extinguished but caused damage tothe paint and hydraulic/electrical harness and its c0mponents. Detailed investigation showed that ahydraulic lock must have been present close to the affected brake creating enough internal pressure torupture the piston. The most probable scenario forthe hydraulic lock iisaloosened (not necessarily disconnected) brake QD [quick-disconnept] coupling. Further investigation ofthe service experience files at Fokker Services showed that more brake fires have occUlTedon aeroplanes in apre-mod S8Fl 00-32-127 configuration. A'I'F.
ROIJ'I'I,,-GSVMIlOl
,NiT'ALS;,[G

lATH



### * * * * * 

### * *
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Alfred Fernandez, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of First Level Entertainment Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of First Level Entertainment Group, Inc.   Dated: January 9, 2013 /s/ Alfred FernandezAlfred FernandezChief Financial Officer, principal accounting and financial officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to First Level Entertainment Group, Inc. and will be retained by First Level Entertainment Group, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3763

To clarify the scope of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1994

Mr. GLICKMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To clarify the scope of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of

1990.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE GUN4 FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990.

5 Paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of section 922(q) of

6 title 18, United States Code, are each amended by insert7 ing ‘‘that has been shipped or transported in interstate

8 or foreign commerce’’ after ‘‘firearm’’.

9 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

10 Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code,

11 is amended by striking ‘‘(q)’’ and inserting ‘‘(r)’’.
2

•HR 3763 IH

Æ
----

               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE            

of 5 October 2004            

in Case T-144/02: Richard J. Eagle and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Staff employed at the JET Joint Undertaking - Equal treatment - Failure to confer status of temporary servant - Article 152 EA - Reasonable time - Material damage sustained)

(2004/C 314/39)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-144/02: Richard J. Eagle, residing in Oxfordshire (United Kingdom), and the 12 applicants whose names appear in the annex, represented by D. Beard, Barrister, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Escobar Guerrero, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Council of the European Union (Agents: J.-P. Hix and A. Pilette) — application for damages for the material loss sustained as a result of the failure to recruit the applicants as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.

----
#### STATE of Oklahoma, Petitioner, v. Benjamin BREWER, Respondent.

No.. F-83-677.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Aug. 2, 1991.

ORDER DECLINING JURISDICTION

The Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma and the District Attorney for Tulsa County have jointly filed an Application For Execution Date alleging that this Court affirmed Benjamin Brewer’s death penalty on April 26, 1986, denied post-conviction relief on September 8, 1989, and the United States Supreme Court denied certio-rari on March 26, 1990. Petitioners request that this Court set a new execution date since all state appeals are exhausted *506and federal appeals were abandoned more than 60 days prior to the filing of the application.

We find that Petitioners have failed to follow the proper procedure. 22 O.S.1981 § 1012 provides:

> If, for any reason, a judgment of death has not been executed, and it remains in force, the court in which the conviction was had, on application of the district attorney, must order the defendant to be brought before it, or, if he is at large, a warrant for his apprehension may be issued.

22 O.S.1981 § 1013 then provides:

> Upon the defendant being brought before the court, it must inquire into the facts, and if no legal reason exists against the execution of the judgment, must make an order that the sheriff of the proper county execute the judgment at a specified time. The sheriff must execute the judgment accordingly.

It is clear that the trial court is the forum for the setting of a new execution date, and it is the duty of the district attorney to seek the new date in that forum. The responsibility of the trial court to set the date was recognized by this Court in *Armstrong v. State,*2 Okl.Cr. 567, 103 P. 658 (1909).

For the above reasons, we decline to assume jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/James F. Lane JAMES F. LANE, PRESIDING JUDGE

/s/Tom Brett TOM BRETT, JUDGE

/s/Ed Parks ED PARKS, JUDGE