alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 12-1211

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MAURICE PLUMMER,

a/k/a Maurice Dion Williams

MAURICE PLUMMER,

Appellant

________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-05-cr-00336-001)

District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry

________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 24, 2013

Before: AMBRO, FISHER, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 24, 2013)

________________

OPINION 

________________
2

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

Maurice Plummer appeals from the District Court’s refusal to reconsider a 

sentence reduction relating to his crack cocaine conviction. For the following reasons, 

we summarily affirm.

Plummer was sentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of 

cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He sought a reduction of sentence pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) following retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines 

that lowered the Guidelines’ range for certain crack cocaine offenses. The Sentencing 

Commission’s commentary excluded from relief, however, individuals whose “applicable 

guideline range” was not lowered by the amendments, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. 1(A), 

which includes those sentenced as career offenders. Although Plummer was deemed a 

career offender at sentencing, the District Court granted a downward departure to a noncareer offender Guidelines’ range; on this basis, he asserted he was entitled to a reduced 

sentence under § 3582(c)(2).

1

Plummer concedes on appeal that this argument is foreclosed by our recent 

decision in United States v. Ware, 694 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2012), in which we held that the 

“applicable guideline range” is calculated prior to any variance or departure, and hence 

was not lowered by the amendments even where a defendant was sentenced to a noncareer offender range due to a downward variance. Id. at 531–32. Because Ware renders 

 

1

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise jurisdiction 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3

Plummer ineligible for relief and further review of that case has been denied, no 

substantial question is presented on appeal. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

District Court’s denial of Plummer’s request for a sentence reduction pursuant to

§ 3582(c)(2) and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d 

Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1389 KA 14-01524**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HEATH M. CUMMINGS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. GABLER, OLEAN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.) rendered June 12, 2013. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]) and sentencing him to a term of incarceration. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the violation of probation was not de minimis nor a mere technicality. Defendant was sentenced to probation for an offense involving sexual contact with a young boy, and one of the conditions of probation was that defendant was prohibited from having any contact or association with children under the age of 18. The evidence at the revocation hearing established that defendant was developing a relationship with a man who is the father of two boys, that defendant rode in a vehicle with those boys, that he gave a false name to the boys’ parents, and that he began to ingratiate himself with the boys by letting them play with his dogs.
Furthermore, given the nature of his prior offense and the violation, we conclude that the term of incarceration, which is approximately one half of the maximum sentence, is not unduly harsh or severe. We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

Entered: December 31, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2263 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2263

      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Cypermethrin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Cypermethrin.

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

SECTION 1. CYPERMETHRIN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.11.74 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE ex rel. Percy James WILSON, Jr. v. Warden DEES.

No. 89-KH-0568.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Percy James Wilson, Jr., applying for reconsideration to the writ denied March 27, 1989, 540 So.2d 334, from the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Division B.

Denied. Moot. Relator pleaded guilty April 5, 1989.
# we qnw Inv 

# en t 

# o ry 

# Exper t Ser 

# vic e A division of the American Chemical Society Phone: 800-631-1884. 614-447-3870 Fax: 614-447-3747 E-iiiail:,iriswei - s@cas.org Web: www.cas.org/products/clienc r

INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT 

## IES-ORDEF. NUtyIBER : RECISTRY NUMBER:
CA INDEX NAME

Please print the above CA Index Name on the appropriate page of your PtdN.

If ;his box is checked, CAS has made correction(s) marked in red to your IES order. Please make the same correction(s) to your PMN before submitting it to the EPA.

CAS • 2540 Olentangy River Road • P.O. Box 3343 • Coltimbus. Olhio 43210-0334 • USA
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Application to Amend 

Section 333 Exemption No. 11941 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1415 

July 21, 2015 

Petitioner: 

Soaring Sky, LLC 

Ryan Cowell, GM 

2180 W. 1st Street, Suite 310 

Fort Myers, FL 33901 

Office: 239-333-2447 Cell: 661-904-5138 

Email: ryan@soaringsky.net 

Website: www.soaringsky.net 

Greetings, 

By letter from the FAA dated July 2, 2015, an exemption was granted to Soaring Sky for relief 

under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 11941 Regulatory Docket 

No. FAA-2015-1415. 

Soaring Sky hereby requests that the exemption so granted and amended, be now further 

amended to include the DJI Inspire 1, DJI Phantom 3, and the Matrice 100 aircrafts. 

• Respecting the DJI Inspire 1, Phantom 3 and Matrice 100, petitioner offers and incorporates by 

reference all of the data and analyses included in prior grants of exemption for that model aircraft 

such as Exemption No. 11941. 

Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional 

information that is required. 

Sincerely, -- - , 

~ 

~R -a 

,!-GM, Soaring Sky, LLC
#### DOCTORS ASSOCIATES, INC., a Connecticut corporation, Appellant, v. Carol C. McCRORY and Linda Kline, Appellees.

No. 86-1151.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 21, 1987.

*127Edmund S. Whitson, Jr. of Whitson & Whitson, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.

Donald W. Giffin, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

This case arises out of a sandwich shop franchise agreement dispute. The trial court denied appellant’s, Doctors Associates, Inc., motion for a stay pending arbitration and to compel arbitration as to four counts of appellees’, Carol C. McCrory and Linda Kline, complaint. Appellant appeals. We reverse the decision below and order arbitration.

Appellees’ complaint alleged five causes of action. Count I alleged that appellant had violated Florida securities law under chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Count II concerned purported misrepresentations regarding the prospects for success of a franchise, in violation of section 817.416, Florida Statutes (1983). Count III alleged misrepresentation concerning the expected profits and/or the quantity or quality of the franchises to be sold, in violation of section 559.809, Florida Statutes (1983). Count IV alleged common law fraud on the part of appellant concerning the sale of the franchise. Count V was a reallegation of the other counts which were deemed to constitute a violation of the civil theft statute, section 812.035, Florida Statutes (1983).

Since the parties’ contract contained arbitration provisions, appellant filed a motion for stay of action pending arbitration and to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14. The trial court granted appellant’s motion to compel arbitration and the stay only as to Count I of appellees’ complaint. Appellees thereafter dismissed Count I of their complaint.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to compel the parties to arbitrate each count of the complaint pursuant to the written franchise agreement. We agree. Based on the authority of *Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. v. Melamed,*453 So.2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), we reverse the decision below and remand with directions to enter an order compelling arbitration on all counts.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
# Exhibit 32

Section 1350
Certifications.

---

# Exhibit 32

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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Beach First National Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this
certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006 as
          filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/  Walter E. Standish, III
| |  | ----------------------------
| |  | Walter E. Standish, III     
| |  | Chief Executive Officer     
| |  | March 22, 2007              

| |  | /s/  Richard N. Burch  
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | Richard N. Burch       
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | March 22, 2007
EIA Facility Code Facility Name Boiler ID

1374 Elmer Smith Station Units 1 and 2

1 6/29/2010 11:08 6/29/2010

2 6/30/2010 6:45 6/30/2010

3 6/30/2010 11:45 6/30/2010

Run Number Test Start Date Test Start Time Test End Date
Measured Value 

(ppm) Basis (Wet or Dry) Test Method Used 

14:08 1.03 Dry Method 26A

9:45 0.923 Dry Method 26A

14:45 0.943 Dry Method 26A

Method 26A

Method 26A

Method 26A

Test End Time

Chlorine Emission Test Results
Data Flag (ADL, 

BDL, DDL)

Test Method 

Comments

ADL 0.00137 2571.91 3923 17.2

ADL 0.00122 2592.19 4062 16.6

ADL 0.00125 2592.19 4062 17.2

Calculated 

Emission Rate 

(lb/mmBtu)

Steam Output 

(1000 lb/hr)

Total Heat 

Input 

(mmBtu/hr)

Flue Gas 

Moisture 

(%)
Fuel Input 

Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure

Measurement 

Method

13 7 876620 134

13 7 894915 133

13 7 889250 132

Flue Gas 

Flow Rate 

(dscfm)

Flue Gas 

Temperature 

(F)

Fuel #1 Flue Gas 

CO2 (%)

Flue Gas 

O2 (%)
Fuel Input 

Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure

Measurement 

Method Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure

Measurement 

Method

Fuel #2 Fuel #3
Fuel Input 

Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure

Measurement 

Method

Other Supporting Information

Fuel #4
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10h



                                GRID NOTE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT


                   $500,000.                                  February 17,1998


                   CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("Borrower") promises to pay
                   PLATINUM PLUS, INC. ("Lender") or order, the principal amount
                   of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000), or such lesser
                   amount as is indicated on the reverse hereof as the then
                   unpaid principal balance, one hundred twenty (120) days from
                   the date hereof with interest at the rate of ten percent
                   (10%) per year on such principal balance calculated on the
                   basis of a  year of 360 days and 30 day months. This note may
                   be prepaid at any time in whole or in part without penalty or
                   premium. Lender agrees to lend up to Five Hundred Thousand
                   Dollars to Borrower under this Note for Borrower's working
                   capital purposes. All repayments shall be to the account of
                   Lender at its home office, 300 Atlantic Street, Stamford
                   Connecticut 06901.

                   Borrower irrevocably authorizes Lender to endorse on the
                   reverse side hereof the date and principal amount of any
                   borrowing or repayment made after the date hereof from or to
                   Lender.


                   To secure the obligation of this Note Borrower hereby grants
                   to Lender a security interest in and to all of Borrower's
                   Intellectual Property whatsoever, including patents,
                   trademarks and copyrights, applications therefor, and trade
                   secrets, technology, information and data, including the
                   Intellectual Property more particularly listed on Schedule A
                   hereto and proceeds of all such collateral.


                   If the principal hereof in not paid when due, Borrower aqrees
                   to pay all costs of collection thereof and all costs of
                   foreclosure of the security interest granted herein,
                   including reasonable attorneys fees, and for such purpose
                   herby submits to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of
                   Stamford of the State of Connecticut. In foreclosure of the
                   security interest granted herein, Borrower waives trial by
                   jury and any requirement of notice or of posting a bond.



                                         CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



                                         By: /s/  J. D. Peter-Hoblyn
                                             ----------------------------
                                             Jeremy D. Peter-Hoblyn
                                             President
**Exhibit
      32.1**




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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of SHINE MEDIA ACQUISITION CORP (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A-1 for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned 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
      the undersigned’s 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 result of operations of the Company for the period
      certified.




SHINE
                MEDIA ACQUISITION CORP.Date:
                November 12, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                David Y. ChenDavid
                Y. ChenChief
                Executive Officer/S/
                Hock S. OngHock
                S. Ong
              Chief
                Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2264 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2264

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain subassemblies for measuring 
                    equipment for telecommunication.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain subassemblies for measuring 
                    equipment for telecommunication.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SUBASSEMBLIES FOR MEASURING EQUIPMENT FOR 
              TELECOMMUNICATION.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Subassemblies       Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          containing one or                                                  31/2011.......
                          more printed
                          circuit
                          assemblies for
                          instruments and
                          apparatus for
                          measuring or
                          checking
                          electrical
                          quantities,
                          specially
                          designed for
                          telecommunication
                          s (provided for
                          in subheading
                          9030.90.88)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Donna JONES and Harry Jones, Appellants, v. Mark CHARLES, Appellee.

No. 4-86-1162.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 13, 1988.

*446Stuart A. Teller of Frank & Flaster, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Robert L. Gossett of Hodges, Gossett, McDonald, Gossett & Crawford, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

Appellants brought suit against the owner of property abutting a public sidewalk for damages for personal injuries allegedly resulting from the owner’s negligence in failing to repair the sidewalk. Attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985), were allowed against the appellants after summary judgment had been granted in favor of the defendant. Appellants appeal the award of attorney’s fees. The issue is whether appellants’ lawsuit was frivolous. *See Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company,*410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982).

Appellee, relying on *Woods v. City of Palatka,*63 So.2d 636 (Fla.1953), *Freundlich v. South Seas Operating Corporation,*398 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), *Cantens v. Jeff-Son, Inc.,*381 So.2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and *Beattie v. City of Coral Gables,*358 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), contends that the law is settled that one on whom a municipal ordinance imposes a duty to maintain a sidewalk is not liable to a member of the public whose personal injury is caused by failure to properly maintain and repair the sidewalk. Therefore, argues appellee, appellants’ complaint was legally baseless.

We agree with appellants, however, that to the extent that the law is contrary to their position, their complaint constituted a reasonable good faith effort to effect a change in the law. *See Gornto v. Marks,*311 So.2d 177, 178-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (Boyer, J., dissenting). A party asserting a good faith, soundly-based attempt to change an existing rule of law is not subject to attorney’s fees under section 57.105. *Parkway General Hospital, Inc. v. Stern,*400 So.2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), *disapproved on other grounds, Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Smith,*497 So.2d 644 (Fla.1986).

We reverse that provision of the order on appeal which assesses section 57.105 attorney’s fees against appellants and remand for correction of the order.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, J„ and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.