alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1884

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Jose Carlos Montoya-Echeverria,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________

 Submitted: October 6, 2014

 Filed: April 13, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Montoya-Echeverria pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry to the United

States after a previous removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1). The district
court sentenced him to 41 months in prison. Montoya-Echeverria appeals his

1

sentence, and we affirm.

In calculating the advisory sentencing guideline range for MontoyaEcheverria’s offense, the district court applied a sixteen-level specific offense

characteristic because the defendant previously was deported after a conviction for

a crime of violence. See USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The court determined that

Montoya-Echeverria’s convictions for domestic abuse assault under Iowa Code

§ 708.2A(2)(c) and first degree harassment under Iowa Code § 708.7(2) qualified as

crimes of violence. As a result, the court determined an advisory guideline range of

41 to 51 months’ imprisonment, and sentenced the defendant to 41 months. 

The court explained, alternatively, that even if there were no sixteen-level

increase for removal after a crime of violence, the court would have imposed the same

sentence based on the facts that led to Montoya-Echeverria’s prior convictions for

domestic abuse assault and first degree harassment. In that incident, MontoyaEcheverria went to the home of a woman with whom he shares a child and questioned

her about her boyfriend. When she refused to answer, he began to choke her, then

displayed a firearm, forced it into her mouth, and asked whether she wasready to die. 

When she did not respond, he removed the gun and departed.

Montoya-Echeverria argues on appeal that there was procedural error in

calculating the advisory guideline range because his convictions for domestic abuse

assault and first degree harassment were not crimes of violence. Even assuming for

the sake of analysis that his argument has merit, the district court was clear that it

would have imposed the same sentence based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), regardless of

the guideline calculation and USSG § 2L1.2. Any error in calculating the advisory

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the

1

Northern District of Iowa.

-2-
range was therefore harmless. United States v. Sayles, 674 F.3d 1069, 1072 (8th Cir.

2012); United States v. Henson, 550 F.3d 739, 741 (8th Cir. 2008).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-
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

In connection with the quarterly report of SendTec, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald Gould, Principal Financial 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/ Donald Gould                                                  
|Donald Gould Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|May 15, 2008
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-01027-CV

ARNOLD GOFFE, Appellant

V.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE AS 

SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF 

BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I LLC, ASSET 

BACK-CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-HE11, Appellee

Appeal from the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 

2013-77133).

This case is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on November 

24, 2014. After due consideration, the Court grants the appellant’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that costs be taxed against the appellant.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 7, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Bland, and

Massengale.
**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 Kentucky First Federal Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tony D. Whitaker, the President 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 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.

| /s/ Tony D. Whitaker                              |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |
| Tony D. Whitaker                                  |   |
| Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 14, 2005                                 |   |
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.12

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

NOVEMBER 15, 2001

$100,000.00

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, DUCT UTILITY CONSTRUCTION & TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
(hereinafter called the "Maker"), with offices at 1101 Saint Gregory Street,
Suite 260, Cincinnati, OH 45202, promises to pay to the order of BUSINESS
INTELLIGENCE GROUP ("Payee"), whose address is 1101 Saint Gregory Street,
Cincinnati, OH 45202. Such principal amount shall bear interest from the date
hereof until repayment at the rate of 10% per annum, payable in full 120 DAYS
from the date of this note (as indicated above).

         Maker shall be liable for all expenses including, but not limited to,
reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by Payee in connection with enforcement of
any rights of Payee hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any right hereunder,
and no waiver, consent or agreement in any instance shall adversely effect the
rights of Payee in any other instance.

         All payments of principal and interest hereunder are to be made in
lawful money of the United States of America at the address of the Payee set
fourth above or such other place as the Payee shall designate to the Maker in
writing.

         This note may be prepaid, in whole or in part, without premium or
penalty, at any time and from time to time.

         In the event of (i) nonpayment of any amount due pursuant to this Note
and failure to cure such nonpayment within thirty (30) days after Maker's actual
receipt of written notice thereof, or (ii) the Maker's assignment for the
benefit of creditors, insolvency of any kind, application for, or appointment of
a receiver, filing of a voluntary or involuntary petition under any provision of
the Federal Bankruptcy Code or amendments thereto or any other federal or state
statute affording relief to debtors of, by or against the Maker, then, and in
any of such events, the indebtedness evidenced by this note shall immediately
become due and payable without any further notice of any kind and without being
subject to any set off or counterclaim with respect thereto.

         Except as otherwise set forth herein, the Maker expressly waives demand
and presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest, notice of protest,
notice of dishonor, bringing of suit and diligence on part of the Payee in
taking any action to collect amounts called for hereunder, and shall be directly
and primarily liable for the payment of all sums owing and to be owing hereon.

         This Note shall bind the Maker, its successors, and assigns.

                                  DUCT UTILITY CONSTRUCTION & TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                                  By: /S/ RANDALL A. DREW
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Randall A. Drew, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         2114084
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 18081949
<ALLOWANCES>                                    244866
<INVENTORY>                                   13779015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              37421103
<PP&E>                                        61670156
<DEPRECIATION>                                35515151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                67915682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         15049122
<BONDS>                                       15000000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        676682
<OTHER-SE>                                    16607614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  67915682
<SALES>                                      122358592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             122358592
<CGS>                                         64006688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                115388160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1891100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                128006
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1194986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5031302
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2592935
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2486397
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2486397
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     9.04


</TABLE>
1

NO: 14-14-00605-CV

________________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

AT HOUSTON, TEXAS

AMELIA V. KELLY,

Appellant,

vs.

MATTHEW D. WIGGINS, JR. 

Appellee

Appeal from the 122nd Judicial District Court

of Galveston County, Texas, The Honorable John Ellisor Presiding

Trial Court Cause No. 11CV0325

NOTICE OF COUNSEL PRESENTING 

ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANT

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

Attorney George F. May will be the counsel arguing to the Court for 

Appellant Amelia V. Kelly at the scheduled oral arguments on Wednesday, 

April 15, 2015 at 2:00 pm. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ George F. May/

_______________________________

George F. May

ACCEPTED

14-14-00605-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/14/2015 6:18:24 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/14/2015 6:18:24 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
TWOMEY | MAY, PLLC

State Bar No. 24037050

2 Riverway, 15th Floor

Houston, Texas 77098

(713) 659-0000

(832) 201-8485 - Facsimile

george@twomeymay.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.3 and 9.5(b), (d), (e), I

certify that I have served this document on all other parties, which are listed

below on April 14, 2015 as follows:

George W. Vie, III

Mills Shirley, LLP

2228 Mechanics Street

Galveston, Texas 77550

gvie@millshirley.com

By (check all that apply)

 personal delivery

 mail

 commercial delivery service

X fax or eservice

 /s/ George F. May/

George F. May

Date: April 14, 2015

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHARAY LAVON WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00006-BO-1; 2:17-cv00038-BO)

Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sharay Lavon Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, 

Donald Russell Pender, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sharay Lavon Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Order entered August 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00191-CV

BALTASAR D. CRUZ, Appellant

V.

JAMES VAN SICKLE, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-09275

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s August 22, 2013 “objection to Court’s order of 

August 19, 2013 and to notice requiring appellant to file motion for extension of deadline to file 

brief, motion to reconsider appellant’s amended motion for leave to file appellant’s brief of 

August 14, 2013 and, in the alternative, motion to increase word and page limits of appellant’s 

brief, to sever appeals, and for extension of deadline to file appellant’s brief(s).” The Court 

DENIES the objection, motion to reconsider, and motion to sever. The Court GRANTS the 

motion to increase word and page limits in part, and orders that appellant’s brief be no more than 

65 pages if not computer generated, or 19,500 words if computer generated. See TEX. R. APP. P.

9.4(i)(2). The Court further GRANTS the motion for extension of deadline and ORDERS
appellant to file his brief within thirty days of the date of this order. No further extensions shall 

be granted without a showing of exceptional circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23520-23521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9417]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request; Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form SE; OMB Control No. 3235-0327; SEC File No. 270-289.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved 
collections of information discussed below.
    Form SE (17 CFR 239.64) is used by registrants to file paper copies 
of exhibits, reports or other documents that would be difficult or 
impossible to submit electronically. The information contained in Form 
SE is used by the Commission to identify paper copies of exhibits. Form 
SE is a public document and is filed on occasion. Form SE is filed by 
individuals, companies or other entities that are required to file 
documents electronically. Approximately 50 registrants file Form SE and 
it takes an estimated 0.10 hours per response for a total annual burden 
of 5 hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this 
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. 
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#52013a3335273426330d133a3f3736123d3f307c373d227c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a79424b4d5f4c5e4b756b42474f4e6a454748044f455a044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>; and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information 
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-

[[Page 23521]]

Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email 
to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfefedfee0f2ded6d3ddd0c7ffccdadc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c3c3e2d33210d05000e03142c1f090f420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 
days of this notice.

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9417 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2

 

Certification Pursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

 
| The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of Boston Edison Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge:

  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   (i)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | the enclosed Annual Report of Boston Edison Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 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 such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Boston Edison Company.

  |

 
| Dated: March 7, 2006     |   | By:   | /s/ JAMES J. JUDGE       James J. Judge Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0734

_________________

WILLIAM SCOTT ROGERS, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY, LEWIS & CLARK 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, LEO C. DUTTON in 

his capacity as Lewis & Clark County Sheriff, JASON 

GRIMMIS, in his capacity as Lewis & Clark County

Undersheriff and former Captain for the Lewis & Clark 

County Detention Center, ALAN HUGHES, in his 

capacity as Captain for the Lewis & Clark Detention 

Center, JOHN and JANE DOES 1 through 50, in their 

capacity as Employees of the Lewis & Clark County

Detention Center,

 Defendants and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Michael F. McMahon, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 15 2020

07/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0734