alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1454

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Kari Valles, also known as La Guera, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 22, 2008 Filed: January 12, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kari Valles challenges as unreasonabl e the 18-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after revoking her supervisedrelease. On appeal, she argues that the district court failed to properly weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and that it was not enough for the court merely to list the factors. We affirm. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court’s discussion of the relevant sentencing factors was suffi cient to allow for meaningful appellate-2- review, see United States v. Bear Robe , 521 F.3d 909, 910 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court must adequately explain sentence to a llow for meaningful appellate review), and that the sentence is not unreasonable, see United States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 922- 23 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing review of revocation sentences for unreasonableness). Significantly, the district court was au thorized to convert Valles’s unserved home detention into an equivalent period of imprisonment, and add it to her Chapter 7 Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(d), p.s. (uns erved home dete ntion imposed in connection with sentence for which revo cation is ordered sha ll be ordered served in addition to sanction determined under U.S .S.G. § 7B1.4, p.s., and may be converted to equivalent period of imprisonment). Further, the court expressly stated that it had considered relevant section 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Franklin , 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (evidence that district court was aware of § 3553(a) factors is sufficient), and specifically me ntioned the need to incarcerate Valles long enough for her to participat e in and benefit from anger-management training, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D) (court shall consider need for sentence imposed to provide defendant with medical care or other correc tional treatment in most effective manner). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
#### METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, et al., Appellants, v. Katie NICHOLS, et al., Appellees.

No. 70703.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 7, 1988.

Robert A. Ginsburg, Dade Co. Atty., and Michael D. Goodstein, Asst. Co. Atty., Miami, for Metropolitan Dade County.

Paul Sexton, of Richard A. Zambo, P.A., Tallahassee, and Richard A. Zambo, of Richard A. Zambo, P.A., Brandon, for Industrial Cogenerators.

William S. Bilenky, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for Florida Public Service Com’n.

Matthew M. Childs, P.A. and Charles A. Guyton, of Steel, Hector & Davis, Tallahassee, for Florida Power & Light Co.

PER CURIAM.

We review Public Service Commission (PSC) Order No. 17273, issued March 11, 1987. Art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const.; § 350.128, Fla.Stat. (1985).

In the order under appeal, PSC approved a request from Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) to establish a new and reduced rate which FPL would pay to qualified facilities for electric power cogenerat-ed on an as available basis. Appellants argue that the expert witness on whose testimony the PSC relied was not expert in all areas of his testimony and that this hearsay testimony was not supported by other evidence. We disagree. The record reflects that the witness was personally involved in the FPL study and possessed the necessary expertise to enable him to testify as to the methodology used in evaluating the study. Moreover, we disagree with appellants assertion that the witness’s testimony was not supported by other competent evidence. We affirm the order.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 43 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 43

           Relating to the retirement of Thomas G. Pellikaan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 1999

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Relating to the retirement of Thomas G. Pellikaan.

Whereas Thomas G. Pellikaan has faithfully served the United States Senate as 
        Editor of the Daily Digest of the Congressional Record during the past 
        10 years, and has served in that office since 1977;
Whereas, prior to that, Thom rendered exemplary service in the Office of the 
        Senate Sergeant at Arms for 14 years as Senate Press Liaison;
Whereas, during his 35\1/2\ year period, he has at all times discharged the 
        difficult duties and responsibilities of his office with extraordinary 
        efficiency, aplomb, and devotion; and
Whereas Thomas Pellikaan's service to the Senate has been marked by his personal 
        commitment to the highest standards of excellence: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Thomas G. Pellikaan be and hereby is commended for 
his outstanding service to his country and to the United States Senate.
    Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of 
this resolution to Thomas G. Pellikaan.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE ex rel. Willie BRUINS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-0144.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Bruins, Willie; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “A.”

Denied.
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 on Form 10-Q of HMP Equity Holdings Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended
September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 Company.

| |  | /s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
OfficerNovember 19, 2004
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 21-0450
ILYA KHMELEV,

Petitioner,

v. KYLE FOUTS, Montana State Hospital Administrator, and ADAM MEIER, Director, Health and Human Services,

Respondents. 

# FILED OCT 0 52021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State or montane ORDER

On September 10, 2021, Petitioner Ilya Khmelev filed a Petition for Writ of MandamusseekingtheDepartmentofPublicHealthandHuman Services(theDepartment) to comply with the mandates ofthe Kalispell Municipal Court's August 31, 2021 Order Finding Defendant Unfit to Proceed and Committing Defendant to the State Hospital for Restoration or, alternatively, to require the Department to immediately admit Petitioner to some other medically suitable facility for the purpose ofrestoring Petitioner's fitness to proceed in Kalispell Municipal Court Cause Number KMC TK-21-1322. This Court ordered response to the Petition be filed and responses have now been timely filed as ordered. Thorough and detailed responses were timely provided by the Flathead County Attorney on behalf of the Flathead County Attorney's Office and the Flathead County Detention Facility, the Department, and the City of Kalispell. As expected, the overall circumstances surrounding Khmelev's criminal and mental health issues and compliance withtheKalispell Municipal Court's August 13, 2021, aremore complicatedthan set forth in the writ application. From the responses it is apparent Khmelev was admitted to the Forensic Mental Health Facility at Galen on September 15, 2021. As such, the basis of 10/05/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0450

### Khmelev's petition and request for reliefno longer exists and has been rendered moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED and DISMISSED as MOOT. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthe Order to counsel for Petitioner, all counsel ofrecord in Kalispell Municipal Court,FlatheadCounty, CauseNo.KMC TK-21- 1322, Kyle Fouts, Adam Meier, the Kalispell City Attorney's Office, theFlathead County Attorney's Office, the Montana Attorney General's Office, the administrator of the Flathead County Detention Center, aswell as theHonorable Lori Adams. DATED this day ofOctober, 2021.

2 

### ChiefJustice

Justices lellie•••11,1•1•11..1.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

132369 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 132369 COA: 271001 Gogebic CC: 05-000111-FH ROBERT THOMAS GURDA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Gogebic Circuit Court for a
determination of whether the defendant is i ndigent and, if so, for the appointment of appellate counsel, in light of Halbert v Michigan, 545 US 605; 125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 2d 552 (2005). Appointed counsel may file an application for leave to appeal with the Court of Appeals, and/or any appropriate post conviction motions in the trial court, within twelve months of the date of the Gogebic Circuit Court’s order ap pointing counsel, in
accord with the deadline s in effect at the time the defe ndant was denied counsel. See MCR 7.205(F)(3), MCR 6.311, and MCR 6.429. Counsel may include among the issues raised, but is not required to include, thos e issues raised by the defendant in his application for leave to appeal to this Court. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not pe rsuaded that the remaining qu estions presen ted should be reviewed by this Court.

s1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 4, 2007

Clerk
Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172 

Susan Stone to: Emily Stich 03/11/2010 03:44 PM

Cc: Tricia Crabtree

Dear Ms. Stich: 

We have received several requests to extend the public comment period on the ozone proposal. We are 

currently considering these requests, and I will let you know as soon as a decision is made. 

Sincerely, Susan Stone

Susan Lyon Stone

Ambient Standards Group l US EPA (C504-06) l Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-1146 l Fax: 919-541-0237 l HSD Phone 919-966-6226

"Emily Stich" Dear Ms. Stone et al., Attached please find a req... 03/11/2010 03:21:23 PM

From: "Emily Stich" <EmilyS@labi.org>

To: Group A-AND-R-DOCKET@EPA, Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/11/2010 03:21 PM

Subject: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172

Dear Ms. Stone et al.,

Attached please find a request for an extension of time for submitting comments from the Louisiana 

Association of Business & Industry regarding EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172, NAAQS for Ozone. Should you 

have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for 

the opportunity to provide comments.

Emily C. Stich 

VP, Research & Programs 

EQ Council Director 

Louisiana Association of Business & Industry 

Box 80258 

Baton Rouge, LA 70898-0258 

225/928-5388 phone 

225/929-6054 fax 

emilys@LABI.org 

www.LABI.org
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 OFFICERS CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Gary M. Clifford, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Acceris
Communications Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
for the registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date:
April 12, 2004 By:
    /s/  Gary M. CliffordGary M. CliffordChief Financial Officer and VP of
Finance
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Kam Shah, certify that:





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





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





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





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





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


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


c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over  financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal  quarter  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting; and





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





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


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





Date: November 15, 2010




/s/ Kam ShahKam ShahChief Accounting Officer
#### CITY OF PARKER, Appellant, v. John E. BRAVO, and State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, Appellee.

No. 87-1122.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 20, 1988.

Timothy J. Sloan, Panama City, for appellant.

John E. Bravo, pro se.

Karen Brodeen, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dept, of Environmental Regulation, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

Although appellant has shown a factual basis for the issue raised on appeal, appellant has failed to show that the argument was preserved for appellate review. Accordingly the appealed order is affirmed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a).

SMITH, C.J., and MILLS and NIMMONS, JJ„ concur.
#### Arthur Ray LARKIN, a/k/a Frank Michael Reese, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-2502.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 14, 1986.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is the second appearance of this case, arising out of the defendant’s sentencing. On the first occasion, we affirmed the judgment and sentence but reversed the retention of jurisdiction over the first one-third of the sentence and remanded with direction so that defendant could be apprised of the reasons for retention prior to pronouncement of sentence. *Larkin v. State,*474 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

The defendant now contends each of the five reasons given for retention were legally insufficient; and if any one of the five was such, the retention must be vacated. We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that even if the first reason given by the trial court is questionable, the trial court would have retained jurisdiction on the basis of the other four, unquestionably sufficient reasons. The trial court, moreover, stated that it retained jurisdiction because of each of the reasons, not all of them.1

*158The trial court could not retain jurisdiction over both of the concurrent sentences for armed robbery, however, as the state acknowledges. *Thomas v. State,*484 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction but remand for vacating retention as to one of the concurrent sentences.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

1

.The five reasons given by the trial court were:

> 1. The trial testimony showed that the robberies involved the use of a .25 caliber automatic handgun.

> 2. The two innocent victims were threatened with death if they did not comply with the demands of the Defendant.

> 3. The victims, pharmacist Howard Fisher and Lawrence Fisher, were tied and bound with electrical cord and adhesive tape.

> 4. Seventy-three (73) year old victim Lawrence Fisher and his son Howard, went through thirty (30) minutes of terror and captivity at the hands of the Defendant.

> 5.Further, the Defendant has previously been convicted of Armed Robbery in three (3) other cases involving a total of five (5) innocent victims in our community who were threatened with death by the armed Defendant. Additionally, the Defendant was convicted on March 22, 1984 of Armed Kidnapping and Armed Robbery involving three more innocent victims.