alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6257

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHNNY OTIS DILLARD, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District 

Judge. (4:03-cr-70134-nkm-4) 

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Johnny Otis Dillard, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Johnny Otis Dillard appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s 

order denying a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We affirm. 

 Dillard pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than fifty 

grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), 

for which the district court sentenced him to 100 months’ 

imprisonment and five years supervised release. 

 Dillard filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. The court denied the motion on August 8, 

2008. Almost six months after the entry of judgment, in 

February of 2009, Dillard filed another § 3582 motion seeking 

relief on the same grounds as his original § 3582 motion. 

Because the district court had previously acted on Dillard’s 

first motion for reduction of sentence, it construed the motion 

as one for reconsideration. 

 “[T]he Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not 

specifically provide for motions for reconsideration and 

prescribe the time in which they must be filed.” Nilson Van & 

Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir. 1985). 

However, the Supreme Court has held that a motion for rehearing 

or reconsideration extends the time for filing a notice of 

2 
3 

appeal in a criminal case if the motion is filed before the 

order sought to be reconsidered becomes final, and the period 

for filing an appeal starts after the motion for reconsideration 

has been ruled on. See United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1 

(1991); United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 n.1 (4th Cir. 

1993). Because Dillard filed his motion to reconsider well 

beyond the expiration of the ten day period to appeal, the 

district court properly dismissed it as untimely. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

United States v. Dillard, No. 4:03-cr-70134-nkm-4 (W.D. Va. Feb. 

3, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5568 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5568

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on p-cresidinesulfonic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

   Mr. Clay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on p-cresidinesulfonic acid.

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

SECTION 1. P-CRESIDINESULFONIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.65 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to p-cresidinesulfonic acid) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5411 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5411

      To suspend temporarily the duty on parts and accessories of 
                 oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

  Mr. Honda introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on parts and accessories of 
                 oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzers.

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

SECTION 1. PARTS AND ACCESSORIES OF OSCILLOSCOPES AND SPECTRUM 
              ANALYZERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Parts and           Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          accessories of                                                    12/31/2015
                          oscilloscopes and
                          spectrum
                          analyzers
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          9030.90.88)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-594-000]

      ( print page 60184)    
Take notice that on September 29, 2000, Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd. (Young), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, to be effective March 27, 2000.

Young states these tariff sheets reflect the change in Right-of-First Refusal provisions permitted by the Commission's Order No. 637, 737A and 637B (collectively referred to as Order No. 637). Specifically, effective on or after March 27, 2000, the firm shipper's contract must be for service for twelve consecutive months or more at the applicable maximum rate for that service, except that a contract for more than one year, for a service which is not available for twelve consecutive months would also be subject to the Right-of-First Refusal. Young also states it is making a clarification concerning incremental rates.

Young further states that copies of this filing have been served on Young's jurisdictional customers and public bodies.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-25852  Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC.,

EMC CORPORATION, VMWARE, INC.

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00480-ADA

ORDER RESETTING MOTIONS HEARING VIA ZOOM

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

MOTIONS HEARING VIA ZOOM on Thursday August 04, 2022 at 10:00 AM before the

Honorable Derek T. Gilliland. The Zoom hearing can be accessed by counsel at the following

link: https://txwd-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1610427634?pwd=V2RpaERVTkdySGI4b2F6cTZGSWRiZz09.

SIGNED this 26th day of July, 2022.

______________________________

DEREK T. GILLILAND

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 214 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1



























CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS







We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries for the period ended June 27, 2004, as indicated in our report dated July 22, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.



We are aware that our report referred to above, is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-Q, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements File No.'s 333-02683, 333-05231, 333-15851, 333-43055, 333-51189, 333-51181, 333-57779, 333-84483 and 333-86492.



We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.









/S/ BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP



BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP









Dayton, Ohio

July 22, 2004
EXHIBIT D

Case 5:20-cv-00563-DAE Document 24-4 Filed 03/03/21 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT D

Case 5:20-cv-00563-DAE Document 24-4 Filed 03/03/21 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACOACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL

INC., EMC CORPORATION, WILLIAM

TUCKER

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00476-ADA

ORDER RESETTING MOTIONS HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is RESET for

MOTIONS HEARING, in U.S. Magistrate Court, Courtroom No. 2, Third Floor, 800 Franklin

Avenue, Waco, Texas, on November 09, 2022 at 09:15 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2022.

Derek T. Gilliland

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA-DTG Document 212 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 1
#### Patricia Clarke, an Infant, by Charles G. Clarke, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, *v.*Steeplechase Amusement Co., Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

October 25, 1957.

*John J. O’Connor*and *James M. GUleran*for appellant.

*Louis Wallach*and *Harry Hartman*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Unsworn testimony is not admissible in civil actions *(Stoppick*v. *Goldstein,*174 App. Div. 306; *Napiearlski*v. *Pickering,*278 App. Div. 456). Where it appears probable that the unsworn testimony of an infant was given weight in the determination below, the interests of justice require that such determination be set aside and a new trial ordered.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law, with costs to the defendant to abide the event, and a new trial ordered.

Pette, Hart and Di Giovanna, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
WACO

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

NO: WA:20-CV-00482-ADA

ORDER RESETTING TELEPHONIC TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING

12/10/2020

vs.

at 10:00 AM

12/04/2020

Alan D Albright

SIGNED on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

§

§

§

§

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., §

EMC CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

The Court hereby sets and directs the parties, or counsel acting on their behalf, to appear by

phone for a telephone conference on December 10, 2020 at 10:00 AM . Please call (866) 434-5269

with access code 9678090 to be included in the hearing.

Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 60 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 1
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 23, 2007*

Decided March 2, 2007

Before

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 05-4448

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID HAMPTON TEDDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United

States District Court for the 

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 02-CR-105-C-01

Barbara B. Crabb, Chief

Judge.

Order

We affirmed Tedder’s conviction but remanded for resentencing after concluding

that conspiracy to commit money laundering should be treated the same as a

substantive money-laundering conviction under the Sentencing Guidelines. United

States v. Tedder, 403 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2005). Our decision had the effect of establishing the Guidelines range at 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment. Under United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the range is advisory, so we remarked:

“Whether this conclusion will benefit Tedder in the end is a question for the district

judge. Booker provides district judges with additional discretion, so on remand the 

judge might reimpose the 60-month sentence if she thinks it the most appropriate 

 

* This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure

6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
No. 05-4448 Page 2

response to Tedder’s crimes and risks of recidivism; appellate review after Booker is

for reasonableness.”

After concluding that Tedder’s risk of recidivism is exceptionally high, the district judge resentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment. Tedder again appeals, and

his lead argument is that the district judge did not warn him that he could be resentenced above the top of the Guidelines’ range. That line of argument is incompatible with the law of this circuit. See United States v. Walker, 447 F.3d 999, 1006–

07 (7th Cir. 2006) (notice is unnecessary because Booker jettisoned the concept of

“upward departure” from the Guidelines). Tedder could not benefit even if we were 

prepared to change circuit law: he knew from the district court’s original sentence 

and from our opinion that a sentence exceeding 46 months’ imprisonment was a distinct possibility. That was all the notice required under any circuit’s standard.

This sentence was reasonable, for the reasons the district judge gave. Tedder

asks us to disagree with the district judge’s conclusions, but that’s functionally a request for a de novo decision on appeal. The question is not what sentence we would

have imposed, but whether the district judge abused her discretion. The 60-month

sentence is not beyond the wide latitude set by a “reasonableness” standard. No 

more need be said.

AFFIRMED
COUNT Y O F SONOM A 

# HEPARTMEM T O F -aANSPORTATIO N DOCKE T .OPER/VI'iON S ZOIOGC T- U A . '=i^23 ' BOARDOFSUPERVISOR S >^^paS^^j ^ PAULLKEUE Y 57 5 ADMMSm*TIO N DRIVE , RM.KJO A W^MAi k ^^^^ \

SUPERVISO R FOURT H DISTRIC T SANT A ROSA . CALIFORNI A 85403 , . ^ pke l ta^i^sanotnS'cmintyjirB (707)565-224 1 FA X (707 ) 565^77 8 August 23,201 0 Th e Honorabl e Ra y LaHoo d Secretar y .o f Transportatio n U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Subject : Docke t

OST-2010-012 4 Dea r Secretar y LaHood : I strongl y support

th e (Charle s M . Schulz-Sonom aCount y Airport applicatio n fo r

agran t unde r th e Smal l CUinnnunit

y Ai r Service Developmen t

Program . Thi s grant , alon g wit h loca l funds , wil l provid e fo r marketin g an dadvertisin g t o attrac t inboun dpassenger s t o Sonom aCount y o n Horizo n Air . Horizo n Ai r

provide s nonsto p ai r

servic e t o Lo s Angeles , La s Vegas , Portland , an dSeattle . Traffi c respons e fiomth e loca l Sonom aCount y marke t ha s bee n excellen t

Th e inboun dpassenge r

number s hav e no t bee n a s larg e a s expected . Sonor mCkjunt y i s weU-know n a s A e "Win e Country, " an dloca l businesse s i n our

are adepen dheavil y o n touris mspendin g t o suppor t ou i economy . Th e Sonom aCount y Airport an dit s marketin g partner s hav e develope daprogra mt o attrac t inboun dvisitor s t o Sonom a Count y an dincreas e th e revenu e fo r Horizo n Air . Th e cos t o f marketin g an dadvertisin g i n Lo s Angeles , Portland , an dSeattl e i s to o bi| ^ fo r th e Sonom a County Airport

an dit s marketin g partner s t o d o i t b y themselves . A n awar do f agran t I n th e amoun t

o f SI30,00 0 bein g applie dfo r woul dgiv e th e Airport

an dit s partner s th e fundin g tha t i s neede dt o d o a n effectiv e jo b o f

promotin g Sonom aCounty . I t i s estimate dthat

th e additiona l passenger s arrivin g firom this progra mwil l generat e ove r $1 1 millio n i n visito r

spendin g i n th e loca l conmumity . Mor e passenger s fo r

Horizo n Ai r

ca n mea n mor e fli^ds t o existin g market s an dt o ne w markets . Thi s program , wifl

i th e support

o f fimdin g fromth e Smal l Community Program , wil l definitel y b e a-win-wi n situatio n for

local business , th e touris mcommunity , th e airline , th e airport , variou s vendors , an dth e travelin g public . Your consideratio n an dsupport o f th e Charle s M . Schulz-Sonom aCount y Airport' s reques t fo r agran t i s mos t appreciated. . Sjjwwely , PAULL.KELLE Y Fourt h Distric t Superviso r PUC;bn2514 9

Smal l Conimunil y Ai r

Servic e Developmen t

Progra mPag e - 3 Charle s M . Scluil z - Sonom aCount y Airpor t Proposa l
EXHIBIT K 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 27-11 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 2
Our Locations

Large or small, each one of our o1ces is designed to inspire innovation, big

ideas, and community.

Norh America Latin America Europe Asia Pacifc Africa & Middle East

Follow Life at Google on

More about us

About us

Contact us

Press

Related information

Investor relations

Blog

Equal Opporunity

Google is proud to be an equal opportunity workplace and is an a1rmative action

employer. We are committed to equal employment opportunity regardless of race, color,

ancestry, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, citizenship, marital status,

disability, gender identity or Veteran status. We also consider qualiGed applicants

regardless of criminal histories, consistent with legal requirements. See also Google's

EEO Policy and EEO is the Law. If you have a disability or special need that requires

accommodation, please let us know by completing this form.

Map data ©2020 Google, INEGI Terms of Use

Irvine

Kansas City

Lenoir

Livermore

Los Angeles

Madison

Mayes County

Miami

Midlothian

Montreal

Mountain View (Global

HQ)

Nashville

New York

Novi

Ottawa

Palo Alto

Pittsburgh

Portland

Provo

Raleigh

North America

Privacy Terms Help

My applications

Find your next job at Google. What do you want to do?

Careers Teams Locations Students Jobs

Saved jobs Job alers

This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze tra;c. Learn more OK

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 27-11 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 2
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification**

I, SimonBraeutigam, certify that: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the Chase Issuance Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided underForm 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

 
 4.
Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 ofRegulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

 
 5.
All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and theirrelated attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described insuch reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certificationabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wilmington Trust Company and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. 

Date: March 29, 2019 

 
By: /s/ Simon BraeutigamName: Simon BraeutigamTitle: 
Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer ofChase Card Funding LLC in charge of securitization)
**
Exhibit 32



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 The Standard Register Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis L. Rediker, President and Chief Executive Officer, and I, Craig J. Brown, Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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.





Date: May 8, 2006





/S/DENNIS L. REDIKER

Dennis L. Rediker

President and Chief Executive Officer





/S/ CRAIG J. BROWN

Craig J. Brown

Senior Vice President, Treasurer and

Chief Financial Officer