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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AHMAD RASHAD HOBBS, a/k/a Sean Hicks,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00024-RBS-FBS-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ahmad Rashad Hobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ahmad Rashad Hobbs appeals the district court’s orders 

denying Hobbs’ 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a 

sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (2014), and denying reconsideration of that 

order. A district court’s decision on whether to reduce a 

sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, 

while its conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under 

that provision is reviewed de novo. United States v. Munn, 595 

F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying Hobbs’ § 3582(c)(2) 

motion. The court plainly understood its authority to reduce 

Hobbs’ sentence pursuant to Amendment 782, see United States v. 

Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2010); USSG 

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), p.s., but declined to do so based on the 

facts and circumstances of Hobbs’ case, with which it was 

abundantly familiar. See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 

196-97 (4th Cir. 2013). Moreover, despite Hobbs’ claim to the 

contrary, it is well settled that the district court is not 

required to provide individualized reasoning when deciding a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, see United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 

728-29 (4th Cir. 2000), and the record does not support Hobbs’ 

argument that the court failed to consider the relevant 18 
3

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195-

97. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Hobbs’ § 3582(c)(2) 

motion for the reasons stated by the district court. See United 

States v. Hobbs, No. 4:08–cr–00024–RBS-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. filed 

Nov. 21, 2014; entered Nov. 25, 2014).

We also conclude that the district court lacked authority 

to entertain Hobbs’ motion for reconsideration. See United 

States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36 (4th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying that 

motion. Finally, we deny Hobbs’ motion for the appointment of 

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|U.S. Refinery Working Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|U.S. Refinery Working Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         | 696,626 | 803,427 | 791,068 | 802,790 | 831,116 | 811,585 | 815,839 | 823,643
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 825,469 | 840,393 | 824,541 | 823,056 | 821,988 | 764,380 | NA      | 744,790 | NA      | 731,592
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 704,756 | 703,274 | 695,511 | 687,413 | 676,015 | 691,645 | 687,850 | 678,712 | 670,444 | 664,396
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 617,513 | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                      
|View History: Annual                                                
|View History: Annual                                                
|View History:                                                       
|                                                                    
|U.S. Foreign Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Barge (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|U.S. Foreign Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Barge (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         | 62,743  | 71,168  | 73,707  | 66,223  | 67,926  | 24,672  | 24,859  | 31,118  | 52,920
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 40,279  | 37,162  | 48,344  | 48,763  | 43,656  | NA      | 11,644  | NA      | 64,458  | 72,067
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 126,658 | 128,741 | 124,429 | 141,655 | 116,023 | 118,895 | 127,763 | 124,847 | 111,426 | 93,172
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 102,096 | 81,686  | 80,463  | 132,127 | 95,260  | 87,705  | 76,084  | 74,006  | 66,643  | 63,386
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 45,966  | 58,201  | 55,074  | 51,359  |         |         |         |         |         |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
#### LISIECKE v. STATE.

No. 22443.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 24, 1943.

H. L. Lewis, Jr., of Navasota, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of cattle theft, appellant was assessed three years in the state penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE 

ON ADMINISTRATIVE OR CIVIL JUDICIAL SEIZURES 

- - -

Deposit Date:

Seizure Amount: 

Refund Amount: 

Seizure #: 

Seizure Date: 

Date Notice Sent: 

Cash Receipt Number : 

Payment date of Refund:

 Special Instructions: 

Amount of Interest: (to be determined by EOAF) 

Pay To: TIN/SS#: 

Address: 

USSS Headquarters Representative: 

Name: Port: Title: 

Signature & Date: Phone: Fax: 

SEIZURE#: 

FUND: COST CENTER: 

FUNDS CENTER: RM600 MATERIAL GROUP: 4312 

FUNCTIONAL AREA: MA1199999988 AMOUNT: 

ORDER: ZFX5 

EOAF: Obligator - Signature/Date EOAF: Certifier - Signature/Date 

Accomplished by NFC: 

NFC Signature and Date 

Form #7a Revised: March 2021 

98999000 

This form is to be used to request payment of interest on refunded seized currency as required by the 

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). Please email this form, with backup documentation, 

to the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture mailbox: Refund_Obligations@treasury.gov
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 315 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.315
                                       Agreed to October 7, 1994        

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, October 
7, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or his 
designee, in accordance with this concurrent resolution, it stand 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, November 29, 1994, or until noon on 
the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to 
section 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and 
that when the Senate adjourns or recesses at the close of business on 
any day from Friday, October 7, 1994 through Friday, October 14, 1994, 
pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or his designee, in 
accordance with this concurrent resolution, it stand recessed or 
adjourned until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, November 30, 1994, or such time on 
that day as may be specified by the majority leader or his designee in 
the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after 
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 3 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. When the House adjourns on the legislative day of Tuesday, 
November 29, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or 
his designee, in accordance with this concurrent resolution, it stand 
adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent 
resolution; and that when the Senate adjourns at the close of business 
on Thursday, December 1, 1994, it stand adjourned sine die, or until 
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution.
    Sec. 3. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of 
the House and the minority leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
Attest:







                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:







                                               Secretary of the Senate.`
Exhibit 10.11

               [Letterhead of Interactive Technologies.com, Ltd.]

January 27, 2000

Boru Enterprises, Inc.
301 Palm Trail
Delray Beach, Florida  33483

      Re:   Interactive Technologies.com, Ltd. ("INTR") - Proposed PIPE Funding

Gentlemen:

      I am writing to confirm the terms of the finders fee agreement between
INTR and Boru Enterprises, Inc. ("Boru") with respect to a proposed PIPE
financing which INTR has been negotiating, as a result of your introduction,
with potential investors brought to INTR by Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc.
(collectively, the "Ladenburg Investors").

      As and when INTR receives payment for its issuance of shares of INTR
common stock pursuant to any PIPE financing agreement which INTR shall enter
into with any of the Ladenburg Investors, INTR shall pay you a finder's fee in
cash equal to 5% of the gross proceeds derived from each such share issuance.

      Please signify your acceptance of the foregoing agreement by signing the
enclosed copy of this letter at the foot thereof, and returning such signed copy
to the undersigned.

      Thank you very much for the assistance you have provided to us in this
matter.

                                       Very truly yours,


                                       William R. Becker, Chief Executive

Accepted:

Boru Enterprises, Inc.


By:__________________________________
      John T. Moran, President
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Wyoming Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Wyoming Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 10,250 | 8,450  | 8,550  | 8,850  | 9,650  | 9,650  | 9,650  | 9,650 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 9,650  | 9,650  | 7,150  | 7,574  | 7,834  | 9,334  | NA     | 10,034 | NA     | 8,777 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 9,277  | 10,054 | 9,583  | 10,054 | 10,220 | 10,220 | 10,220 | 10,220 | 10,000 | 10,000
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,500 | 10,500
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 10,500 | 6,300  | 6,300  | 6,300  | 6,300  |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JOSE MARTINEZ, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 601 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1







                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-4 No. 333-44905) of ClimaChem, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our
report dated April 16, 2001 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of ClimaChem, Inc. incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.



                                                          /s/Ernst & Young LLP
                                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
April 16, 2001
1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge

for the District of Minnesota.

___________

No. 96-2259 ___________

Darrell F. Alessi, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

 * District of Minnesota.

Northwest Airlines, Inc., a *

foreign corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 10, 1996

 Filed: December 13, 1996 ___________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

In separate actions, Darrell F. Alessi sued Northwest

Airlines, Inc. ("Northwest"), Delta Air Lines ("Delta"), and United

Airlines ("United"), alleging his applications for a pilot position

were denied in violation of the Employee Protection Program of the

Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C.A. § 42103(a). The

critical issue common to all of Alessi's actions was whether he was

a "protected employee" entitled to be the first employed by a

covered air carrier. In the parallel case against Delta, the court

held that Alessi was not a "protected employee." Ackerman v. Delta

Airlines, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 1269, 1276-78 (N.D. Ga. 1995). After

concluding Alessi's claim was barred by this decision, the district

court1 granted Northwest's motion for summary judgment on

collateral estoppel grounds. Alessi appeals, and we now affirm. 
-2-

We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, applying the

same standard as the district court. Demming v. Housing and

Redevelopment Auth., 66 F.3d 950, 953 (8th Cir. 1995). Because the

Delta decision determining Alessi was not a "protected employee"

bars relitigation of this issue, we agree with the district court

that Northwest is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See

Tyus v. Schoemehl, 93 F.3d 449, 453 (8th Cir. 1996) (discussing

collateral estoppel requirements); Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v.

General Dynamics Corp., 968 F.2d 707, 711 (8th Cir. 1992) (same);

Perkins v. Spivey, 911 F.2d 22, 35 (8th Cir. 1990) (recognizing

defensive use of collateral estoppel), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 920

(1991). We note that while this case was pending, another court

also relied on the Delta decision to collaterally estop Alessi from

relitigating this claim. See Ackerman v. United Airlines, Inc.,

No. 96-2455 (TFH) (D. D.C. Sept. 13, 1996).

We also reject Alessi's other arguments on appeal as without

merit, and deny his objection to Northwest's submission of a

supplemental appellate brief. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

                                     BY THE
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of LION, Inc., a Washington
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of
Randall D. Miles, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Thomson, Chief Financial
Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350), that to his 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.







CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ Randall D. Miles                         /s/ Steve Thomson
------------------------------------         -----------------------------------
Randall D. Miles                             Steve Thomson


August 20, 2004                              August 20, 2004
------------------------------------         -----------------------------------