alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United State s District Judge for 1 

### the District of Nebraska. ___________ No. 95-4083

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Adrian W. Davis, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 28, 1996 Filed: April 4, 1996

___________ Before McMillian, Wollman, and Murphy, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Adrian W. Davis pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distri bute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Overru lingDavis's objections to being classified as a career offende r under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(C), the distri ct court sentenced him to 151 months 1 imp risonment and three years supervised release. Davis appeals, and w e affirm. A defendant has two prior felony convictions for purposes of careeroffender classification under section 4B1.1 if the sentences for the two prior convictions were imposed in "unrelated cases." U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(2) . "Prior sentences are not considered related if t hey were for offenses that were separated by an intervening arrest ( i.e. , the defendant is arrested for the first offense prior to committing the second offense)." U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment.

### -2-

n.3. T he government produced exhibits showing Davis committed a dru g offense in 1988 while he was on bail after being arrested for a dru g offe nse in 1986. The district court thus correctly found that thos e offenses qualified Davis as a career offender, regardless of whether they were consolidated forsentencing. See United States v. Aguilera , 48 F.3d 327, 330 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 117 (1995). Davis's contention that the commentary to section 4A1.2 should no t be applied to offenses committed before its November 1991 effective date is meritless. We agree with the district court that there is no ex post facto problem here, because the provisions in section 4A1.2 were enacted before Davis committed the instant offense. Cf. United States v. Allen , 886 F.2d 1 43, 146 (8th Cir. 1989) (so long as actual crime for whic h defendant is being sentenced occurred after effe ctive date of new statute, there is no ex post facto violation); United States v. Carson , 988 F.2d 80 , 81-82 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) (no ex post facto claim where challenge d senten cingprovisions, §§ 4A1.1 and 4A1.2, were not enacted afte r commissionof defendant's present crime), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 14 2 (1993). Davis also argues that a criminal history category VI overrepre sented the seriousness of hi s past criminal conduct, and that the district court theref ore erred in refusing to depart downward at sentencing unde r U.S.S.G.§ 4A1.3. Bec ause the record shows the district court was clearly aware of its authority to depart from the Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months, it s discretionary decision not to do so is unreviewable. Se e United States v. Hall , 7 F.3d 1394, 1396 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm.

### -3- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Order entered December 23, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00818-CV

CITY OF DALLAS, SELF INSURED, Appellant

V.

IN THE MATTER OF CHARLIE JAIMES, DECEASED, ELVIA JAIMES, 

CLAIMANT BENEFICIARY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1-18-0209

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s December 21, 2022 motion to supplement the 

clerk’s record with (1) a transmittal letter from The Casaubon Firm, L.L.P. filed on 

February 23, 2018 and (2) Plaintiff’s Original Petition filed on February 27, 2018

1

. 

The two documents are attached as exhibits to appellee’s motion and the Court 

encloses a copy of the motion with this order.

1 Plaintiff’s Original Petition was originally filed in trial court cause number 1-18-0231 which was 

subsequently ordered consolidated into the underlying action.
We ORDER Rockwall County District Clerk Lea Carlson to file, on or 

before January 9, 2023, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the two 

requested documents. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this 

order to Ms. Carlson and all parties.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
#### James BAKER, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 9, 1953.

S. M. Ward, Hazard, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A: Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Perry Circuit Court. Judgment of conviction for renting rooms for the purpose of prostitution in violation of KRS 436.075. $200 fine and 6 months in jail. The facts, questions raised, authorities cited and applicable law have been carefully considered.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of MAJOR CREATIONS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended October 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Stanley Major, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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.





/s/ Stanley Major

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

Date: January 27, 2006

Stanley Major

Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MICHAEL D. MILLER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-30230 

D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00034-TOR-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Michael D. Miller appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion 

for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see United 

States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-30230 

Miller contends that the district court abused its discretion because it 

incorrectly concluded that he would be at equal risk from COVID-19 if he were 

released, gave insufficient weight to the health risks created by his incarceration, 

and improperly considered his rehabilitation separately from the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. The record does not support Miller’s claims. The district court 

correctly observed that Miller’s medical conditions would exist even outside of 

prison and that COVID-19 continues to spread within the community. Moreover, 

it considered the risks posted by Miller’s particular health conditions. It did not 

abuse its discretion in concluding that, because Miller’s health conditions were 

stable and being monitored and treated, he had previously recovered from COVID19, and he had received two doses of the vaccine, he had not shown extraordinary 

and compelling reasons for compassionate release. See United States v. Robertson, 

895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only if its 

decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record). Moreover, the 

court considered Miller’s rehabilitative efforts and reasonably concluded that, 

though his efforts were commendable, they did not support compassionate release 

given the nature and circumstances of his offense and significant criminal history. 

See Keller, 2 F.4th 1284.

AFFIRMED.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00 07 4

- CV

IN RE SAMSON LOYNACH AN RELATOR

----------
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TRIAL COURT NO. 1233936R

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND ORDER

---------- Relator filed a petition for wr it of mandamus asking this court to compel the

trial court to rule on his motion for temporary transfer of appellate record

. Because the t rial court has ruled on Relator’s motion on December 8, 2014, and
December 15, 2014 , this court is of the opinio n tha t relief should be denied.
Accordingly, Relator’ s petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot

. Relator’s motion to suspend rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) is denied as moot as well.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

The clerk of the trial court provided this court with copies of the December
8, 2014 and December 15, 2014 orders. The clerk of this court is instructed to

send copies of those orders to Relator along with this opinion.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER , J. ; LIVINGSTON, C

. J.; and MEIER , J

.
DELIVERED: March 19 , 201 5
**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 theannual report of New Skies Satellites Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel S. Goldberg,President and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.     The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Daniel S. Goldberg         |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Daniel S. Goldberg             |
|   |   | President and Director         |
|   |   | (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

 

Date:       March30, 2006

 

----
| (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 of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March 11, 2011 | /s/ Colin Dunn                          |
|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                            | Colin Dunn                              |
|                            | Vice-President of Finance and Secretary |
#### C. C. DOOLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27609.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 18, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the, State. ( , -

MQRRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is swindling by worthless check; the punishment, ten years.

Mr. Luther, an automobile dealer in the City of Palacois, testified that the appellant came to his place of business on the day in question,' represented himself as 'a used car dealer,'and purchased four used automobiles-from him, giving him a check in the sum’ of $5,500 in payment therefor, and that the' chqck-wap not paid when presented to the bank. Luther testified that he was. able to recover one automobile but that his loss on the transactipn was approximately $5,000.

An employee of the bank on which the check was drawn testified that the appellant had opened an account at his institution shortly before the date of the check but that it- had all been drawn out' and the account closed prior 'to the date the check in ques- • tion was given.

The appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted that he gave the check to Luther and that he did not have funds in the bank to cover the same, but stated that he intended to sell’the automobiles and pay the check. The appellant stated that he was unable to do so because he was arrested, convicted and sent to the penitentiary on another hot check charge. Appellant admitted having been convicted of felonies in seven counties in Texas and once in the State of California.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and we find the evidence sufficient to. support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1
 
  PVH CORP.
APAX PARTNERS200 MADISON AVENUE
33 JERMYN STREETNEW YORK, NY 10016
LONDON, SW1 6DN 
 
 
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
  
 
    
  
 - , '
 
  
 " ' , ."
 
 , " Tommy Hilfiger "
 
 " Tommy Hilfiger "
 
 " ' ' "
 
 ' Calvin Klein Tommy Hilfiger ' Van Heusen, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, IZOD, ARROW, Warner ' s Olga Speedo, Geoffrey Beene, Kenneth Cole New York, Kenneth Cole Reaction, MICHAEL Michael Kors, Sean John Chaps .
 
 '
 
 .
 
 
 
 
  
 PVH Corp.:
 
 Dana Perlman
    
 Tommy Hilfiger:
 
     
 Apax Partners:
 
     
  ' " " ,  '   ' ' '  ' '  ' ' ' ' ' ' '  the failure of the Company's licensees to market successfully licensed products or to preserve the value of the Company's brands, or their misuse of the Company's brands  '
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

THOMAS R. DOMAN, JR., AS 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

ROCK A. DOMAN, DECEASED,

Petitioner

v.

ATLAS AMERICA, INC. (DE.), ATLAS 

ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, ATLAS 

RESOURCES, LLC, SUCCESSOR IN 

INTEREST TO ATLAS RESOURCES, 

INC., ATLAS AMERICA, LLC, 

SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ATLAS 

AMERICA, INC. (PA.) ATLAS ENERGY, 

INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO 

ATLAS AMERICA, INC. (DE.) AND ATLAS 

ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, ATLAS 

ENERGY OPERATING COMPANY LLC 

AND ATLAS ENERGY FINANCE 

CORPORATION,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 482 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

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 Annual Report of Repligen Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) as applicable 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|June 13, 2008                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|/s/ Walter C. Herlihy                                                                 
|Walter C. Herlihy                                                                     
|Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal
executive officer)                   
|                                                                                      
|/s/ William J. Kelly                                                                  
|William J. Kelly                                                                      
|Vice President Finance and Administration (Principal
accounting and financial officer)
EXHIBIT
      32.2








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,  Edward  Alexander,  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
      ended March 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/
                Edward
                AlexanderEDWARD
                ALEXANDERPrincipal
                Accounting officer and
                Chief Financial Officer







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  Proton
      Laboratories,  Inc.  and  furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its  staff  upon  request.
#### BOWIE v. CITY OF HOUSTON.

No. A-4347.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 7, 1953.

Al Schulman and Simon Frank, Houston, for petitioner.

Will Sears, City Atty., and DeWitt Reagan, Asst. City Atty., Houston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner presented to the Court of Civil Appeals two. points of error, as follows :

“Point I. The trial court erred in .dismissing Appellant’s Petition inasmuch as a city is engaged in a proprietary function while constructing a sewage disposal plant and is liable for its negligent acts.”

“Point II. The trial court erred in dismissing Appellant’s cause of action for the reason that Appellant’s Petition alleges in effect that the City of Houston was conducting a nuisance for which it is liable.”

Both points of error were overruled by the Court of Civil Appeals, 259 S.W.2d 765, but only the ruling on the first point is brought here for review.

We are satisfied that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is a correct one and that the opinion of that Court correctly declares the law on the point .of error before us, but inasmuch as we have no jurisdiction of the second point our order must be: Application refused, no reversible error.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56466-56467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23490]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9022-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 09/07/2015 Through 09/11/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20150259, Final, FRA, NC, Southeast High Speed Rail, Richmond, 
VA, to Raleigh, NC, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, Contact: John 
Winkle 202-493-6067.
EIS No. 20150260, Final, BR, CA, Central Valley Project Municipal and 
Industrial Water Shortage Policy, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, 
Contact: Timothy Rust 916-978-5516.
EIS No. 20150261, Final, DOE, HI, PROGRAMMATIC--Hawaii Clean Energy, 
Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, Contact: Dr. Jane Summerson 800-472-
2756.
EIS No. 20150262, Final, USFWS, VA, Chincoteague and Wallops Island 
National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, 
Contact: Thomas Bonetti 413-253-8307.
EIS No. 20150263, Draft, BLM, USFS, ID, Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement Rasmussen Valley Mine, Comment Period Ends: 11/02/2015, 
Contact: Bill Volk 208-236-7503. The U.S. Department of the Interior's 
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Forest Service are joint lead agencies for this project.
EIS No. 20150264, Final, FHWA, TN, Pellissippi Parkway Extension (State 
Route 162) from State Route 33 (Old Knoxville Highway) to US 321/State 
Route 73/Lamar Alexander Parkway, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, 
Contact: Theresa Claxton 615-781-5770.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20150199, Draft, OSM, Other, Stream Protection Rule, Comment 
Period Ends: 10/26/2015, Contact: Robin Ferguson 202-208-2802

[[Page 56467]]

Revision to FR Notice Published 07/24/2015; Extending Comment Period 
from 09/15/2015 to 10/26/2015.

    Dated: September 15, 2015.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-23490 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Clovis PORTER et al., Appellants, v. William Marcus PEYTON, Jr., et al., Appellees.

No. 3284.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

March 9, 1955.

Bowlen Bond, Teague, for appellants.

Brundidge, Fountain, Elliott & Bateman, Johnson & Rembert, Dallas, Bradley & Geren, Carl Cannon, Groesbeck, for appel-lees.

McDO'NALD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the District Court of Limestone Comity. The trial court entered a judgment certifying certain orders to the County Court of Limestone County for observance in connection with the estate of William Marcus Peyton, deceased. Appellants, who have an interest in the estate, prosecuted this appeal and caused transcript to be filed in this court. Appellants have since, by motion, made known to the court that they do not wish to further prosecute their appeal. It is accordingly ordered that this appeal be and same is hereby dismissed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 31, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 31, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0267. KENNETH LEMOINE v. ANNAMARIE LEMOINE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2000CV28300