alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT



## ___________ No. 05-2278

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Norman Dale Unverzagt, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 9, 2006 Filed: February 16, 2006

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, HANSEN and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Norman Dale Unverzagt plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court 1 found that Unverzagt had three prior convictions for “violent fel onies” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The district court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months under that statute.-2- Unverzagt appeals, arguing that two of hi s prior convictions were for burglaries of commercial buildings and should not be treated as “violent felonies” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Unve rzagt’s arguments are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Taylor v. United States , 495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990) (holding that a categorical approach is usedto determine if a prior conviction involved statutory elements that showed “generic burglary,” i.e., unlawful entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure with th e intent to commit a crime). Unverzagt’s arguments are also foreclosed by numerous cases from our circu it that follow Taylor and hold that burglaries of commercial bu ildings are “violent felonies” under § 924(e)(1). See United States v. Smith , 422 F.3d 715, 721 (8th Cir. 2005) (“The guidelines definition of crime of violen ce found in § 4B1.2 is also viewed as interchangeable with the statutory definition of violent felony found in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).”); United States v. Sun Bear , 307 F.3d 747, 753 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that attempted burglary of a commercial property qualified as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2); United States v. Hascall , 76 F.3d 902, 905 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Building or structure in this generic definition is broad e nough to include both a commercial building and a residence.”); United States v. Solomon , 998 F.2d 587, 590- 91 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that attempted second de gree robbery under Minnesota law qualified as a “violent felony” under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 4488** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES MICHAEL NICHOLS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston
. Thomas E. Johnston , District Judge. ( 2:07

- cr - 00192

- 1 )

Submitted : December 18, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christian M. Capece, KAY CASTO & CHANEY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Monica D. Coleman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virgi nia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Michael Nichols appeals from the twelve

- month
sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. H e argues that his sentence is unreasonabl e . For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006)
. At Nichols’ revocation hearing, the district court correctly determined that Nichols’ advisory sentencing range w as 8

- 14 months. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (2013). Nichols argues that the district court erroneously consider ed the seriousness of one of his supervised release violations in con travention of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012). See id. (noting that some 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors are not to be considered for supervised release sentence). Our review of the hear ing reveals the one year term of imprisonment and two years of supervised release thereafter (with numerous special conditions regarding treating and preventing Nichols’ alcoholism) were based on the court’s

concern that Nichols’ continued drinking was going to kill someone. This view was supported by Nichols’ eight prior driving under the influence convictions and his violence toward family members while intoxicated
.3 Under these circumstances , we find that the di strict court adequately explained the selected sentence which was within the recommended sentencing range and based on permitted considerations
. United States v. Thompson , 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010) . Thus, we do not find that Nichols’ sentence

was plainly unreasonable. Crudup , 461 F.3d at 437 ; see also Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 346

- 55 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within

- Guidelines sentence for

non - revocation sentence ). We therefore affirm. 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
#### CITY OF NICHOLS HILLS, Appellant, v. Dr. Emil FARRIS, Appellee.

No. S-90-689.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 14, 1990.

ORDER

Appellant has filed with this Court a motion to file a standard brief in the above styled and numbered cause, which was automatically placed on the Accelerated Docket of this Court pursuant to Rule 11.2(a)(1). *See*22 O.S.Supp.1990, Ch. 18, App., *Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.*Appellant also seeks an interpretation of Rule 11.5(a). Specifically, appellant asks this *228Court to delineate whether Rule 11.5(a) applies to parties who have automatically been placed on the Accelerated Docket.

Rule 11.5(a) states in pertinent part:

> The forms promulgated by Sections C, D, and E of this Rule are to be used as an application or a petition in error as it relates to the Accelerated Docket procedure.

> 3⁄8 * * 3⁄8 5⁄8 *

> (1) These forms (Rule 11.5 c, d and e) ... are to be used in lieu of filing a brief by the appellant or appellee in the ordinary course of the appeal. Such accelerated filing by both the appellant and appellee waives their rights to the standard appeal procedure and their rights to use briefs therein.

Apparently, the confusion surrounding Rule 11.5 arises from the titles of the forms in Sections D and E. Those forms are respectively entitled *“Application*for Accelerated Docket — Past Track” and “Response to *Application*for Accelerated Docket — Fast Track.” (emphasis added). Appellant avers that neither the City of Nichols Hills nor the appellee filed an application for the instant case to be placed on the Accelerated Docket. Although the city does not object to so being placed, it argues that it never intended to relinquish its right to file a standard brief.

We answer appellant’s question in the affirmative and hold that any party who is assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court and fails to object to such assignment is deemed to have waived its right to file a standard appellate brief. Notwithstanding the titles of the forms set forth in Sections D and E, a review of the text of these forms reveals that they are to be used as summary briefs. They are not simply applications for and objections to • being placed on the Accelerated Docket. Furthermore, Rule 11.5(a)(1) specifically states that “[tjhese forms ... are to be used in lieu of filing a brief....”

In an alternative motion, appellant asks this Court to consider the standard briefs which have already been filed with the Clerk of this Court. After reviewing appellant’s motion, and upon a determination that extraordinary circumstances have been demonstrated, we hold that appellant’s alternative motion should be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ed Parks ED PARKS, PRESIDING JUDGE

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

/s/ Tom Brett TOM BRETT, JUDGE

/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin GARY L. LUMPKIN, JUDGE

/s/ Charles A. Johnson CHARLES A. JOHNSON, JUDGE
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 Energy Focus, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015   (the “Report”), I, James Tu, Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Marcia J. Miller, Chief   Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the   Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:      (i)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and      (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                     of the Company.       /s/ James Tu     James Tu   Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer    Date: April 15, 2016              /s/ Marcia J. Miller     Marcia J. Miller   Chief Financial Officer    Date: April 15, 2016         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Energy Focus, Inc. and will be retained by   Energy Focus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT 
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arabella
Exploration, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief:



(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 the operation of the
Company.



|Dated: September 8, 2015 | By: | /s/ Terry
        E. Sanford                                        
|------------------------ | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |     | Terry E. Sanford                                                    
|                         |     | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|                         |     |
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Century Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Rozelle, President 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, to the best of my knowledge that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 the Company.








Date: February 8, 2011





/s/ Joseph RozelleJoseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)











The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) of GSV Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael T. Moe, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





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





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





/s/ Michael T. MoeName:
Michael T. MoeDate:
June 13, 2011
<page>				       EXHIBIT 32.01


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 Morgan Stanley Spectrum
Technical L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(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 the Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		March 31, 2006
The Honorable Warren K. Ur bom, United States District Judge for the District 1 of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2043

___________ Larry Gene Critel, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Lyle J. Koenig; David L. Piester; * Richard G. Kopf; Pasco M. Bowman; * [UNPUBLISHED] Diana E. Murphy; George G. Fagg, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 22, 1998 Filed: June 2, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Larry Gene Critel appeals the district court’s order granting defendants ’ 1 separate mo tions to dismiss his complaint. After carefully reviewing the record, w e conclude the district court did not commit error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.11










CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 
RETIREMENT PLAN
As Amended and Restated effective January 1, 2010
SIXTH INSTRUMENT OF AMENDMENT
Recitals:
		
	1.
	Curtiss-Wright Corporation (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the Curtiss‐Wright Corporation Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) and has caused the Plan to be amended and restated in its entirety effective as of January 1, 2010.


		
	2.
	The Plan consists of two separate components:  the EMD Component, which applies to eligible employees of Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical Corporation as provided in the EMD appendix to the Plan, and the CWC Component, which applies to other employees eligible to participate in the Plan (the “CWC Component”).


		
	3.
	Subsequent to the most recent amendment and restatement of the Plan, the Company has decided to amend the CWC Component to reflect the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement covering employees of Metal Improvement Company - Lynwood Division that increases their benefit formula with respect to credited service earned on or after August 1, 2013.


		
	4.
	Articles 12.01 and 12.02 of the CWC Component permit the Company to amend the CWC Component, by written resolution, at any time and from time to time.


		
	5.
	Article 11.02(b) of the CWC Component authorizes the Curtiss-Wright Corporation Administrative Committee to adopt certain CWC Component amendments on behalf of the Company.


Amendment:
For the reasons set forth in the Recitals to this Instrument of Amendment, the CWC Component of the Plan is hereby amended in the following respect:
Effective August 1, 2013, Section 9.02(a)(xi) (“Metal Improvement Company - Lynwood Division”) is amended by adding new subparagraphs (E), (F) and (G), to read, respectively, as follows:
		
	(E)
	With benefits commencing on or after August 1, 2013, $18.00 multiplied by his Years of Credited Service on or after August 1, 2013, for any pension payments due for months commencing on or after August 1, 2013.


		
	(F)
	With benefits commencing on or after August 1, 2014, $19.00 multiplied by his Years of Credited Service on or after August 1, 2014, for any pension payments due for months commencing on or after August 1, 2014.


		
	(G)
	With benefits commencing on or after August 1, 2015, $20.00 multiplied by his Years of Credited Service on or after August 1, 2015, for any pension payments due for months commencing on or after August 1, 2015.











Except to the extent amended by this Instrument of Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed on this ____ day of __________________, 2013.


Curtiss-Wright Corporation
Administrative Committee




By:        


Date:
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________

CESAR A. DELA ROSA , Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT , Respondent.

__________________________ 201 3-3 078

__________________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. SF831E120107 -I-1.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R We construe Cesar A. Dela Rosa ’s June 24, 2013 filing

as a m otion to submit a supplemental filing . He also moves to “ unlock [] the newly sub m itted documents or pleadings by the respondent party .” The court notes that there do not appear to be any confidential or “locked” documents on the court’s electro nCase: 13-3078 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 07/29/2013CESAR DELA ROSA V

. OPM 2

ic filling docket, and Dela Rosa does not mention any specific documents that he seeks to obtain

. Upon consideration thereof, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion to “ unlock [] the newly sub m itted do cuments or pleadings by the respondent party” is denied. (2) The motion to submit a supplemental filing , which the court construes as a reply brief, is granted.
F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

s 26 Case: 13-3078 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 07/29/2013
#### Rene FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 3, 1971.

PER' CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
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  clickNsettle.com,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-KSB"), I, Roy Israel, 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 Form 10-KSB  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

      (2)   The information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Dated: October 3, 2005


/s/ Roy Israel
------------------------------------
Roy Israel - Chairman of the Board, CEO and President


                                       28
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Registration Statement (No. 333-113479) on Form S-8 of Potomac
Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary of our report dated March 31, 2009, relating to
our audit of the consolidated financial statements, included in and incorporated
by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Potomac Bancshares, Inc. and
Subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2008.

|                          
|--------------------------
|                          
|                          
|Winchester,
      Virginia
|March 31,
      2009      

84

---
JAN-22-2014 10:24 FAA RENTON 425 227 1320 P.02/02 

FAA-2013-0958t SC 25·50-SC 

The certification basis statement for Special Condition 25-503-SC is in error. It stated: 

"Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CPR) 21.17, The Boeing Company 

must show that the Boeing Model 777-200,-300, and -300ER series airplanes meet the 

applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25~ 

128." 

The certification basis for each Boeing Model 777 airplane is correctly shown below: 

For Model777-200 airplanes--Title 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 

through Amendment 25-82. 

For Mode1777-300 airplanes--Title 14 CPR part 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 

through Amendment 25-86 with the exception listed: Sec. 25.853(d)(3), Compartment 

interiors. at Amendment 25-82 . 

.For Model 777-300ERairplanes--Title 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendment 25~1 

through Amendment 25-98 with the exception listed: Sec. 25.853(d)(3), Compartment 

interiors, at Amendment 25-82. 

In addition, the certification basis includes. certain special conditions. exemptions, or 

1ater amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special 

conditions. 

Special conditions, as defined in Sec. 11.19, are issued in accordance with Sec. 11.38 and 

become part of the type certification basis in accordance with Sec. 21.1 01. 

()'"i 

TOTAL P.02
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 

OF MARYLAND 

Petitioner, 

V. 

SUZANNE NICOLE HULTHAGE 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

OF MARYLAND 

Misc. Docket AG No. 78 

September Term 2017 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Indefinite Suspension by Consent filed 

herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736, in which the Respondent admits that sufficient 

evidence exists to sustain allegations that she committed professional misconduct in violation 

of Rules 1.1, 1.6, 1.16, 3.1 and 8.4(a) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, it is this 

21st day of May, 2018, 

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Respondent, Suzanne Nicole 

Hulthage, be and she is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of 

Maryland, and it is further, 

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Suzanne Nicole 

Hulthage from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of the 

Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland all clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State 

in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-742; and it is further 

ORDERED, that the Respondent shall not petition for reinstatement unless and until 

she has been deemed fit to practice law by a medical provider acceptable to Bar Counsel. 

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. 

Senior Judge