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

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 26, 2006

Before

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 04-1507

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RODNEY MCLEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 02 CR 635

Charles P. Kocoras, 

Judge.

O R D E R

This court ordered a limited remand so the district court could state on the

record whether the sentence remains appropriate now that United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), has limited the Sentencing Guidelines to advisory status. See

United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005). The district judge has now

replied that he would today impose the same sentence, knowing of the Sentencing

Guidelines’ advisory status. 

McLee’s sentence of 262 months concurrent on Counts 1 and 2 was the lowest

possible sentence within the advisory range of 262 to 327 months, and these terms

were ordered to run concurrent with shorter terms on Counts 5 and 8. Combined

with a 60-month consecutive sentence on Count 3, he was sentenced to a total of

322 months. The United States did not respond to our invitation to file an

argument in this court regarding the district court’s Paladino remand statement. 

McLee now argues that a proper consideration of the factors specified in 18 U.S.C.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 04-1507 Page 2

§ 3553(a) would have resulted in a different sentence at the original sentencing

such that a “full remand” for resentencing is required. 

In Paladino, we held that if a district court responds to a limited remand

with a statement that it would reimpose the same sentence, “we will affirm the

original sentence against a plain-error challenge provided that the sentence is

reasonable.” 401 F.3d at 484. We do not see any reason why McLee’s sentence of

322 months would be deemed “unreasonable” in post-Booker practice. The

judgment of the district court therefore is AFFIRMED.
# C_2008285EN.01003102.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/31

---

Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-427/08)

(2008/C 285/52)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbaek and I. Khatzigiannis)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 1 January 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 141.

1

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4290 

To require the Attorney General to study whether an individual’s history 

of domestic violence can be used to determine the likelihood of such 

individual committing a mass shooting. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2017 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require the Attorney General to study whether an individual’s history of domestic violence can be used to determine the likelihood of such individual committing a mass 

shooting. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY ON WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL’S HIS4 TORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CAN BE USED 

5 TO DETERMINE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH 

6 INDIVIDUAL COMMITTING A MASS SHOOTING. 

7 Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment 

8 of this Act, the Attorney General of the United States 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4290 IH

1 shall complete a study and submit a report to the Con2 gress on whether an individual’s history of domestic vio3 lence can be used to determine the likelihood of such indi4 vidual committing a mass shooting. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
(r 

,- . 

- -, 

-, j 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

8n nool+84 an4 

LO quote rmm JOUS 

#mlaBluA8n’ caurt on aA ov 

shsrlfi to hln fadtom, 

mueatr mu elnater epontiOA OP the AAwtiA8 d:. CO? the 5hditf t0 

ozaploy a brother Of a OoUnty 00Pmi8810A8Frg 

The oaao ot hwlorron %WO84 lS2 8 WO t2dM) 1-b 

hxar sup- ~0~8)~ h014, tht th0 boolJrJ~0~8* am 

an4 Aot the oharlrt bar th8 powor an4 rlsht to -Plw @a4 

dla o lla00r gur r thSAo u#& AOOS 8 í#, ~Allltorr a A l lrvator o lmmto r a h 
Bonorablo A. It* Blokwoa, 

"Authmit~ to bia4 the oowaty bt ooatraot must oolw r?QE the eo~s*lcau8' oot&rs 

a OtiAug o A b OdyIi t i0 DOI l UffiOiOBt mt 

tho iAdl'?fdti Ooarsia8ii-porA w hat. rofXdA8d froa objoobing to th@ 8MU~~t~oa Oi 

mob mathorlt~ by thbr l lloao4 r4a& It tr 

not nowmary, horover, &bat authority bo 

ShOU#l hr 10 OrbOr aOtAAl4 OAtAnd AA thA 

IldAUtW; l &O fUO8 that AA Or4U -0 El840 -r 

ha tipa br -1, 

l aeuty ofrioan, by rirtuo of their 

offloo, are not agent0 o1~0~sr6d to 0~Msaot 

on behalf of the eowty; aad ahon they aaao#m 

t0 40 M, A0 SWOVOY~ OM b% tL86 a&A*8 fh0 

etxult~ upon the oootFar* or ror ths vall&o oi 

the @Md8 tP th0 abran Of =ri?hAtiOA br 

tho c!malaSnslonur’ QOA?Ie~ 

‘Ilo OfflOU or thh stat0 or AAy orsioar of a4 4i8triot, oounty,, oitr, pnolart~ 

rohool Uhtriet, or othrr mua&ol;rl nrWltG 

SloA of thlr state, or any orrioo? or aMhoT 

of any 3t4t0, 4lrttlot, oount~, oitt, aohool 

418trioB or other mualoipal bow&, or WQi* 

of any oourt, oreatod br or \mdar wthOri8y 

Of a4 g0A6t-d Or 8mtiti bw Or thin %a’to, 
3.53 

ora4mu5er 0r the kuidatoxv ehall8rp, 

or *oh for, or 0oafSra t&a ap 

L any orrtoo, poria0a, 

intemkrh r 9, mb 

plowat or dutlr OS a4 porron nLta4 +Ub 

ia th WOOA 4-m. bl 8titnity or WiUit 

thd tbir4 4~reo by OOADWl&doit~ to tho 

poreoa 80 appolziM~6 or 00 ro*ltq 01? te any 

other rembsr ot aq nroh bowl, d. k&htua, or oa&rt or WRieb auah &WISOA mo l ppolatins or voting say br a waber, rhon the alart, 

au, or conpAsabml 0r wah AppoIntM fa $0 

b pal4 POI dlmotly 01 lndlr.otLy out ot 

OP rraa pdi0 fund0 01 rwr 0t orif 0r 

64 kin4 or oharaotor wht6ootu.~ 

TiO arw AOt fumiShob with l oow Or the O?dU or 

the Camalsrf.onor~* Court deoortbad la par letter 8a4 thawroro 60 not g-am 0~ smh 

It la our oplnim~ houevor tha8 the Caaud~8~0nm’a 

Court woulb &PO thm authority to aubwriw thr ebrrlfi to 

a08 a3 tholr 

r 

@At iA hidA# th. V?dWS OQU?tbU6c, w-M8 

If the Cbales oaet#* Oourt rlahod to 40 r00 Of OOUTBI, thw 

ahwlrf uvula not ham to aarapt 6uah podtioa of aim&at if 

hb did Ad aolfim to a0 10~ 

Tf the Ooradsef~~~o’ Cour8 thrw&h the eharl’itf 

as lta a~& l iplgo4 ai brothor or on@ or the County aaac-dsalonorr ~8 a Janitor or other oou&hou&o awlo7ae, euah 

~ploywnt uoti4 be 8 diroot and r2sgraot viotitlolt ot Arti01s 432, v, A* T. p. a.
#### In re The Matter of the ASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN CARTER COUNTY, Oklahoma.

No. 39343.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 13, 1961.

*255James D. Payne, County Atty., Carter County, by Burke G. Mordy, Asst. County Atty., Carter County, Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Fred Hansen, First Asst. Atty. Gen., L. G. Hy-den, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albert D. Lynn, Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Ed Armstrong, Asst. Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

Otjen & Carter, by Frank Carter, Enid, for Oklahoma Farm Bureau, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, plaintiff in error, or appellant, seeks reversal of the same State Board of Equalization’s order, appealed from in Board of County Com’rs of Kay County, Okl. v. State Board of Equalization, Okl., 363 P.2d 257. Said order requires an increase of *7.75'%*in the valuation (for ad valorem tax purposes) of rural realty in Carter County, and an increase of 7.5% in the valuation of urban realty in said County. Because of this difference in percentages of increase appellant contends that said order contravenes the uniformity provision of Art. X, sec. 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. This same argument was made in the cited case. Here, as there, it is not disputed that rural property in Carter County is presently assessed at a smaller percentage of its fair cash value than urban property. In the cited case we held that in a county, where that situation exists, the order’s requirement of a larger increase in the valuation of a county’s rural realty, than its urban realty, did not demonstrate that the order violated the cited constitution provision. In view of that decision, appellant’s argument presents no cause for reversal; and the same order herein appealed from is again hereby affirmed.

Also, the period for filing a petition for rehearing herein is reduced from 15, to 10, days, as was ordered in the cited case.

WILLIAMS, C. J., BLACKBIRD, V. C. J., and WELCH, DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.

IRWIN, J., concurs specially.

JACKSON, J., dissents.

IRWIN, Justice

(concurring specially).

I concur specially for the reasons set forth in Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County, Oklahoma v. State Board of Equalization, Okl., 363 P.2d 242.
EXHIBIT 32

  Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Chief Executive Officer and
 Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
                                      2002

      Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Aura Systems, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended November 30, 2004 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date: March 17, 2005                             /s/ Dennis Calvert
                                                 ------------------

                                                 Dennis Calvert
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 17, 2005                             /s/ Dennis Calvert
                                                 ------------------

                                                 Dennis Calvert
                                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer
# Cherokee - Appalachian Regional Commission

- South Carolina Office of Rural Health: Dreaming Up New Recovery Solutions   Recovering from Substance Use Disorder (SUD) can be a vicious cycle, especially when it comes to accessing the treatment and support services needed to successfully secure meaningful employment. Furthermore, it’s not just an individual who feels these effects, but entire communities. In upstate South Carolina, public services in Cherokee, Pickens, and Union counties have been [&#8230;]The post South Carolina Office of Rural Health: Dreaming Up New Recovery Solutions   appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments Executive Director Steve Pelissier Email &#160;info&#64;s&#99;&#97;&#99;&#111;&#103;&#46;&#111;&#x72;&#x67;The post South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2008092EN.01001901.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 13 February 2008 — Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa v Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Baw International Ltd e Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment

(Case C-55/08)

(2008/C 92/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

Applicant:

Defendants: Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Baw International Ltd and Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment

Defendants:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the fact that the State reserves to itself the ‘right to run games of luck or chance’ (Article 9 of DL 422/89 of 2 December, amended by DL 10/95 of 19 January 1995 and by DL 40/2005 of 17 February 2005) and the right to ‘organise pool betting systems’ (Article 1 of DL 84/85 of 17 December 1985, amended by DL 317/2002) compatible with the rules of Community law ... laying down the principles of the freedom to provide services, free competition and prohibition of State monopolies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the fact that the State reserves to itself the ‘right to run games of luck or chance’ (Article 9 of DL 422/89 of 2 December, amended by DL 10/95 of 19 January 1995 and by DL 40/2005 of 17 February 2005) and the right to ‘organise pool betting systems’ (Article 1 of DL 84/85 of 17 December 1985, amended by DL 317/2002) compatible with the rules of Community law ... laying down the principles of the freedom to provide services, free competition and prohibition of State monopolies?

| 2. | What criteria should guide interpretation of national legislation restricting those principles, for the purposes of determining whether such restriction is admissible in light of the rules of Community law ...? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What criteria should guide interpretation of national legislation restricting those principles, for the purposes of determining whether such restriction is admissible in light of the rules of Community law ...?

| 3. | Is the prohibition of advertising games of luck and chance when forming the substantive content of the message, having regard to the exception relating to the advertising of games organised by the Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, compatible with the rules of Community law ... laying down the principles of the freedom to provide services, free competition and prohibition of State monopolies? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the prohibition of advertising games of luck and chance when forming the substantive content of the message, having regard to the exception relating to the advertising of games organised by the Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, compatible with the rules of Community law ... laying down the principles of the freedom to provide services, free competition and prohibition of State monopolies?

---
#### SHANNON v. STATE.

No. A-11790.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 15, 1953.

Rehearing Denied May 6, 1953.

David Tant, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen.; and Gran-ville Scanland, County Atty., Oklahoma 0klahoma City, for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge..

, George Patrick Shannon and Jene Hubbard Hardin were indicted by an Oklahoma County grand jury fpr the crime of extortion. A severance was granted and .the, defendant first named above was tried before a jury in the district court of Oklahoma County, and convicted, with punishment left to the court, the jury being unable to agree. The court assessed punishment at three years’ confinement in the State Penitentiary. Appeal has been perfected to this court.

The indictment seems to have been found under 21 O.S.1951 §§ 1481 and 1482. Section 1483 of- the same Title prescribes punishment upon conviction not exceeding five years.

The judgment of the lower court was dated November 30, 1951, and. the petition in error and record were filed in this court on May 29, 1952. Thus it will be noted that the defendant took advantage of the full six months in which to perfect appeal. Although no brief was filed, the case was set on the docket for oral argument for December 17, 1952, and thereafter additional time was granted defendant in which to file brief. Such time has expired.

We have read the petition in error, the indictment and the' entire record very' carefully, The défendant did not testify, and offered, no 'evidence. There was ample evidence 'to support the indictment. In fact, the defendant after being advised of his constitutional rights prior to answering interrogatories interposed by officers, and which were taken down in shorthand, made a complete confession- of his efforts to extort money.-from the manager of Humpty Dumpty Store No. Id, in Oklahoma City. He was caught in , the store in the nighttime in the act of taking the money promised him after threats.

The jury recommended that the defendant be given a suspended sentence, but the *476court in passing’ sentence stated that he could not under the law consider the: recommendation of the jury in that the defendant had previously been convicted of larceny, and on two other occasions for robbery. 22 O.S.1951 § 991.

We find no error that would entitle the defendant to á new trial. Hulsey v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 332, 169 P.2d 771.

The judgment of the district court of Oklahoma County is accordingly affirmed.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jeff R. Mitchell, Chief Financial Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the Company ) do 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 my knowledge:





This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 24, 2010 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: November 3, 2010





/s/ Jeff R. MitchellJeff R. MitchellChief Financial Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4421 

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to vehicle weight 

limitations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2017 

Mr. DESAULNIER (for himself, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. DEFAZIO, 

and Mr. SMUCKER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to 

vehicle weight limitations, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS-INTERSTATE 

4 SYSTEM. 

5 Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(u) ELECTRIC VEHICLES.—A vehicle, if propelled 

8 exclusively by means of electric battery power, may exceed 

9 any vehicle weight limit (up to a maximum gross vehicle 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4421 IH

1 weight of 82,000 pounds) under this section by an amount 

2 that is equal to the difference between— 

3 ‘‘(1) the weight of the vehicle attributable to 

4 the electric batteries and wiring system of the vehi5 cle; and 

6 ‘‘(2) the weight of a comparable diesel tank and 

7 fueling system.’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2009153EN.01003802.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 May 2009 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHMI — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)

(Case T-183/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative and word mark jello SCHUHPARK - Earlier national word mark Schuhpark - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of use of earlier mark - Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 153/73

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH (Warendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Peter and J. Braune, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Leder & Schuh AG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: W. Kellenter and A. Schlaffge, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2008 (Case R 1560/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Schuhpark Fascies GmbH and Leder & Schuh AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Schuhpark Fascies GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Schuhpark Fascies GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

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

In
connection with the quarterly report of SIN Holdings, Inc. (the
Company), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, (the
Report), I, Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, based on my knowledge, 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 requirement of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act  of 1934; and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2) |  | the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the
Companys financial position and results of operations.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Steve S. Sinohui
Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 13, 2003