alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #20207 and #20208; NORTH DAKOTA Disaster Number ND-20001]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-4760-DR), dated 02/15/2024. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storm and Straight-line Winds. *Incident Period:*
                         12/25/2023 through 12/27/2023.
 DATES: Issued on 02/15/2024. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/15/2024. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/15/2024.
 ADDRESSES: *Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*
                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 
                        ( print page 14553)
                        Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/15/2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal 
                    *https://lending.sba.gov*
                     or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at 
                    *disastercustomerservice@sba.gov*
                     or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Barnes, Cass, Dickey, Grant, LaMoure, Logan, McIntosh, Ransom, Richland, Sargent, Steele, Stutsman, Traill. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 20207B and for economic injury is 202080. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Francisco Sánchez, Jr., Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.


[FR Doc. 2024-03960 Filed 2-26-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
ALD-114 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 24-1054

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TYREE STRATTON,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-05-cr-00068-002)

District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 2, 2024

Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 15, 2024)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Tyree Stratton appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District 

Court’s order.

The procedural history of this case and the details of Stratton’s claims are well 

known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s order, and need not be discussed at 

length. In 2006, Stratton was sentenced to 260 months in prison after being found guilty 

by a jury of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and using 

and carrying a firearm in connection with a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c). His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See United 

States v. Archer, 282 F. App’x 164, 169 (3d Cir. 2008). Stratton later filed a § 2255 

motion challenging his firearm conviction. He argued that armed bank robbery was no 

longer a crime of violence. The District Court denied the § 2255 motion but issued a 

certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), invalidates armed bank robbery as a 

crime of violence. Stratton filed a notice of appeal. The parties were informed that we 

would consider taking summary action on the appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary action is appropriate if 

there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. We 

recently held that armed bank robbery is a crime of violence even after Borden. See

United States v. Jordan, 96 F.4th 584, 594 (3d Cir. 2024). Thus, this appeal presents no 

substantial question, and summary affirmance is appropriate.
3

For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. Stratton’s 

motion to stay the ruling is denied as moot.
#### Joe WARREN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28966.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 17, 1957.

*954Cowsert & Bybee, Hereford, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for transporting whiskey and beer in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $200.

The complaint upon which the information was presented contained one count which charged, in substance, that appellant unlawfully transported whiskey and beer in a dry area. No allegation was therein made with reference to a prior conviction for an offense of like character. The information upon which the case was tried and submitted to the jury and upon which the jury returned its verdict finding appellant guilty as charged contained a count charging a prior conviction of an offense of like character.

The complaint, not alleging a prior conviction, would not authorize an information alleging a prior conviction, because an information must be based upon a complaint and limited by the allegations of the complaint. Art. 415, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. The prior conviction, not having been alleged in the complaint, should not have been submitted to the jury. Royal v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 492, 244 S.W.2d 239 and Moore v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 220, 268 S.W.2d 471.

We further observe that although it was stipulated that Swisher County was-a dry area, a search of the statement of facts which purports to contain a true and correct transcript of all the proceedings-had upon the trial, fails to show that the state proved that the appellant transported the whiskey and beer in Swisher County.

The proof shows only that the-transportation was in the town of Happy. The town of Happy not being the county seat of Swisher County, we cannot take judicial notice that it is in said county. Hunt v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 115, 269 S.W.2d 385.

In violations of laws adopted by local option elections, the locus of the offense is an integral part of the proof. Sims v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 192, 247 S.W.2d 1022; Teal v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 289, 263 S.W.2d 260; Yarbrough v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 302, 263 S.W.2d 557; and Hunt v. State, supra.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DANIEL THOMAS WEAVER , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3256

[ June 21, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Lawrence Michael Mirman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 43

- 2017

- CF

- 000768, 43

- 2017

- CF

- 000770 and 43

- 2017

- CF

- 000822

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , G ROSS and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
      OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE as adopted pursuant to
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,EdwardAlexander,  the
      chief executive officer
      and chief financial officer
      of  Proton  Laboratories,  Inc.  ,
      certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBAmendment
      Number 1for the quarter
      endedMarch 31,
      2007, as filed by the
      Company with the Securities  and  Exchange Commission, to
      which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the requirements
      of
      Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of  1934, as
      amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB
      financial  statements  fairly  presents, in all
      material respects, the financial
      condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Proton  Laboratories,  Inc.





January
                4,
                2008
            By:
            /s/
            EdwardAlexanderEDWARDALEXANDERChief
                Executive Officer and
                President




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





A
      signed original of this written
      statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Proton Laboratories,
      Inc.
      and will be retained by ProtonLaboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
                                HADCO CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                          STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
            FOR THE YEARS ENDED OCTOBER 28, 1995, OCTOBER 26, 1996, AND OCTOBER 25, 1997
<CAPTION>


                                                           1995           1996           1997
                                                           ----           ----           ----
<S>                                                     <C>            <C>           <C>
Primary:
     Net income                                         $21,374,000    $32,016,720   $(36,493,000)
                                                        -----------    -----------   ------------

     Average shares outstanding                           9,805,624     10,244,814     11,458,141
     Add: Average common stock equivalents outstanding    1,553,175      1,140,458         --
     Less: Shares assumed repurchased under the treasury 
       stock method                                        (552,364)      (301,330)        --
                                                        -----------    -----------   ------------

     Total                                               10,806,435     11,083,942     11,458,141
                                                        -----------    -----------   ------------

     Per share amount                                   $      1.98    $      2.89    $     (3.18)
                                                        -----------    -----------   ------------

</TABLE>
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 

29, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00267-CV

IN RE TURNER W. BRANCH AND THE BRANCH LAW FIRM L.L.P., 

Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

164th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-34395

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 7, 2014, relators Turner W. Branch and the Branch Law Firm, 

L.L.P. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code 

Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court 

to compel the Honorable Alexandra Smoots-Hogan, presiding judge of the 164th 

District Court of Harris County, to vacate her (1) February 18, 2014 order denying 
2

their motion quash subpoena and motion for protective order; and (2) April 2, 2014 

order denying their motion for reconsideration.

Relators have not shown that they are entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We also lift our 

stay entered on April 8, 2014.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown.
#### R. W. MERRITT, Appellant, v. Wendall HULL, an Infant by his Next Friend, Raymond Hull, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 18, 1955.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1955.

M. C. Redwine, M. C. Redwine, Jr., H. T. Lisle, Winchester, for appellant.

Alton S. Payne, Winchester, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment awarding appellee, Wendall Hull, $2,000 damages against appellant, R. W. Merritt. We conclude the evidence supports the verdict of the jury and we do not believe the amount of damages awarded was excessive under the circumstances. The court gave correct instructions to the jury and properly refused to give the two instructions offered by appellant.

The motion is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
#### R. W. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27673.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1955.

W. G. Abbott, Midland, for appellant.

Hulon B. Brown, County Atty., John R. Culver, City Atty., Midland, Leon Dougla-s, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a conviction for a violation of a city ordinance regulating the parking of motor vehicles, and the punishment assessed -is a fine of $1.

This is a companion case to that of Richardson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 280 S.W.2d 752.

Upon the authority of that case, the present appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
EXHIBIT
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
      OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE as adopted pursuant to
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,EdwardAlexander,  the
      chief executive officer
      and chief financial officer
      of  Proton  Laboratories,  Inc.  ,
      certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBAmendment
      Number 1for the quarter
      endedMarch 31,
      2007, as filed by the
      Company with the Securities  and  Exchange Commission, to
      which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the requirements
      of
      Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of  1934, as
      amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB
      financial  statements  fairly  presents, in all
      material respects, the financial
      condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Proton  Laboratories,  Inc.





January
                17,
                2008
            By:
            /s/
            EdwardAlexanderEDWARDALEXANDERChief
                Executive Officer and
                President




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





A
      signed original of this written
      statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Proton Laboratories,
      Inc.
      and will be retained by ProtonLaboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       OF
                            PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with Catuity,
Inc. (the "Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14b or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.

Michael V. Howe, the President and Chief Executive Officer, and John H. Lowry,
the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, each certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.

Date: May 11, 2004

                                        /s/ Michael V. Howe
                                        -------------------
                                        Michael V. Howe
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

                                        /s/ John H. Lowry
                                        -----------------
                                        John H. Lowry
                                        Chief Financial Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3184

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Martin Lima-Pacheco, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 24, 2007

 Filed: May 29, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Martin Lima-Pacheco pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States

after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. Having calculated a Guidelines imprisonment range of 70-87 months,

the district court1

 sentenced him to 75 months. Lima-Pacheco appeals, arguing that

his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not consider relevant 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that should have received significant weight. We disagree.
-2-

See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (appellate review for

unreasonableness).

The record shows that the district court properly considered the undisputed

advisory Guidelines range, the nature of the offense, the defendant’s circumstances

and history (including repeated unlawful entries, deportations, and imprisonment),

sentencing objectives (especially deterrence), and the need to avoid unwarranted

sentence disparities. We hold that the sentence the district court then imposed is not

unreasonable. See United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir. 2006)

(addressing consideration of § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Sebastian, 436 F.3d

913, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2006) (with regard to determination “that certain disparities are

warranted,” recognizing both Congress’s policymaking power and Attorney General’s

prosecutorial discretion).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I MAD F OU AD Z E I N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 75036 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 302- 547 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I m a d F oua d Z e i n, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of L e banon, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l . W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , Zehat ye v. 

# FI LED OC T 25 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 75036 2 G on zales , 453 F . 3d 1182, 1184- 85 ( 9th C i r . 2006) , and de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e a g e n c y ’s f in d in g th a t Z e in f

a ile dto de m ons tr a t e tha te i the rthe thr e a t e ni ng phone c a l l s he r e c e i ve d f r om H e z bol l ah or th e a tte m p te dk id n ap in g o f h is s o n w e r e o n a c c o u n t o f ap r o te c te dg r o u n d . Se e I NS v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 - 8 2 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; Te c u n - Flo r i a n v . I NS , 207 F . 3d 11 07 , 11 09 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). T he re cord al so do es no tcom pel the concl usi on that the har a s s m e ntZ e i n e xpe r i e nc e d byguar ds a tc he c kpoi nt s a m ount e d t o pe r s e c ut i on o rd e m o n s tr a te dac le arp r o b ab ilityo f p e r s e c u tio n . Se e Kh o u ra s s a n yv . I NS , 208 F .3 d1 0 9 6 , 1 1 0 0 - 0 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; Na g o u lko v . I NS , 3 3 3 F .3 d1 0 1 2 , 1 0 1 6 - 1 7 ( 9 th C i r . 2003) . A c c o r d in g ly , Z e in ’s w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im f

a ils . See 8 U . S. C. § 1 23 1(b)(3). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
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 Unico, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark A. Lopez, Chief 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 the best of my 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.

/s/ Mark A. Lopez
____________________________________
Mark A. Lopez
Chief Financial Officer
November 24, 2004