alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60357

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER WAYNE GABLE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:10-CR-43-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised 

release, Christopher Wayne Gable contends that the district court should have 

ordered additional inpatient treatment for his substance abuse and mental 

health issues in lieu of imprisonment. He concedes that he violated several 

conditions of his supervised release but asserts that the violations resulted 

from the mishandling of his mental health treatment. He asserts that

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 7, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60357 Document: 00514862680 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2019
No. 18-60357

2

additional inpatient treatment was appropriate because of his long history of 

substance abuse and mental illness and because he was successful during

supervised release when his mental health issues were properly treated. He 

cites the requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D) that the district court 

consider the need for medical care or other treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). 

The district court considered the applicable § 3553 factors in imposing 

Gable’s revocation sentence. The court considered the need to provide Gable

with medical care and noted that it would recommend that he receive mental 

health treatment in prison and be admitted into an inpatient treatment 

program immediately upon his release. The court determined that a 12-month 

prison term was necessary because of Gable’s “very frightening” history, his 

anger, the need to protect the public, the failed efforts to treat Gable’s mental 

health and substance abuse problems, the nature and circumstances of the 

violations, and his continued noncompliance both with the conditions of his 

release and with the requirements of an inpatient drug treatment program.

Gable has not shown that his prison sentence does not account for a 

factor that should have received significant weight, that it gives significant 

weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or that it represents a clear error of 

judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Warren, 

720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). He has not shown error, much less obvious 

error. Accordingly, he fails to show that the revocation sentence was plainly 

unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-60357 Document: 00514862680 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2019
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1179

To authorize appropriations for the Federal Election Commission for fiscal

year 1994.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2, 1993

Mr. SWIFT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on House Administration

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for the Federal Election

Commission for fiscal year 1994.

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

3 That the second sentence of section 314 of the Federal

4 Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 439c) is amend5 ed by striking out ‘‘and’’ after ‘‘1978,’’ and by inserting

6 after ‘‘1981’’ the following: ‘‘, and $23,654,000 for the

7 fiscal year ending September 30, 1994’’.

Æ
Case 3:22-cr-00422-E Document 55 Filed 10/24/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 118
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund V, L.P., Series 3 (the  "Partnership") for the period ended December
31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002,   I,  Melanie  R.  Wenk,
Vice-President  and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc.,  general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

     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 result of operations of
          the Partnership.




/s/Melanie R. Wenk
------------------
Melanie R. Wenk
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
November 24, 2009
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund V, L.P., Series 3 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant
to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk, Vice President
-Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:



| | 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 result of operations of the Partnership.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/MELANIE
    R. WENK                                           | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Melanie R. Wenk                                                  | 
|Vice President-Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.



Date: August 14, 2012
#### CAMPOS v. STATE.

No. 21124.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 5, 1940.

Joe E. Briscoe, of Hondo, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in jail for thirty days.

The prosecution proceeded in the county court upon an information. No complaint is embraced in the transcript. In the absence of a complaint the court below was without jurisdiction.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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.
Exhibit No. 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 Advanced Photonix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard D. Kurtz, Chief Executive 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:





(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:  June 29, 2011/s/ Richard KurtzRichard KurtzChief Executive Officer








76
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 LeCroy Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Scott D. Kantor, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:


         (1)      The Form 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 Form fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.



November 10, 2005                                   /s/ Scott D. Kantor
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                        Scott D. Kantor
                                                        Chief Financial Officer



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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John LeClair, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Corning, J.), rendered July 15, 1982, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence, statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the hearing court properly found that an independent source existed for the in-court identification of the defendant by the complainant since the complainant had *572spent more than an hour with the defendant in the unemployment office, during which time she was able to view him at close range and in good lighting *(see, Manson v Brathwaite,*432 US 98).

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove that he used forcible compulsion against the complainant as an essential element of the rape charge. However, upon viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction. The People proved that the defendant hit the complainant on the head with a nightstick, causing a laceration which required several stitches to close and which placed the complainant in fear of further physical injury *(see,*Penal Law § 130.00 [8]). Therefore, the People proved that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant by forcible compulsion *(see,*Penal Law § 130.35).

The sentence imposed upon the defendant was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit or constitute harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). Kooper, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

              Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 Packeteer, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dave Cote, as
President and Chief Executive Officer 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, that:

(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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 30, 2004                     /s/ DAVE COTE

                                         -----------------------------
                                         Dave Cote
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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 staff
upon request.
Exhibit 10.32


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO


 


NEORX
CORPORATION


 


KEY
EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment, dated as of March 30, 2005, is entered into by and between
NEORX CORPORATION (the “Company”) and SUSAN D. BERLAND (the “Executive”) with
respect to the Key Executive Severance Agreement between the Company and the
Executive dated as of October 25, 2004 (the “Agreement”) as follows:


 


1.               The first sentence
of Section 1 of the Agreement shall be amended by replacing “ninety (90)
days” with “nine (9) months” in reference to advance notice of nonrenewal in
the future.


 


2.               The third sentence
of Section 5.5 of the Agreement (which relates to offset for other
earnings) shall be deleted in its entirety. 
The words “and Offset” shall be removed from the title of Section 5.5.  The words “and potential reduction” shall be
deleted from Section 5.1(c) of the Agreement.


 


3.               Except as amended
by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full and force effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  NeoRx Corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Susan D. Berland

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/Anna L. Wight

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Susan D. Berland

  	
  Its:  Vice
  President, Legal
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71102-71103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-110-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

November 22, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 20, 2000, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised 
tariff sheets, with an effective date of December 21, 2000:

Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 187
Sheet No. 187A
Sheet No. 188

    Williston Basin states that it is filing the proposed revision to 
its Tariff to facilitate compliance with Order No. 637 and the revised 
reporting requirements in Section 161.3(1)(2) of the Commission's 
Regulations.
    Effective September 1, 2000, pipelines were required to identify 
operating personnel and facilities shared by the pipeline and its 
marketing affiliates on

[[Page 71103]]

its Internet web site and update the information within three business 
days of any change. Williston Basin presently identifies any shared 
operating personnel and facilities on its Internet accessible 
Electronic Bulletin Board (EBB) and also in its Tariff. Williston Basin 
is proposing in the filing to remove language from Section 7.1 of the 
General Terms and Conditions of its Tariff relating to operating 
personnel and facilities Williston Basin shares with its marketing 
affiliates, as this information is now available on its EBB.
    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). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30348 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                     
<ARTICLE>                                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000
                                           
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                             18,163
<SECURITIES>                                       27,253
<RECEIVABLES>                                     309,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                       20,864
<INVENTORY>                                       322,548
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  675,778
<PP&E>                                          1,118,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                    475,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,912,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             227,680
<BONDS>                                           801,486
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              684
<OTHER-SE>                                        699,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,912,887
<SALES>                                         2,010,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,010,414
<CGS>                                           1,659,485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,659,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   18,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    1,677
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 59,544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   130,012
<INCOME-TAX>                                       49,560
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                80,452
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       80,452
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.32
        
 


</TABLE>
*OPINION ISSUED OCTOBER 10, 2007*

#### LONA R. McCOY VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-07-131)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when her 2005 Chevrolet Cavalier struck holes while she was traveling on County Route 14 in Braxton County. County Route 14 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to make an award in this claim for the reasons more fully stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred on April 15,2007. County Route 14 is one-lane gravel road at the area of the incident involved in this claim. Claimant testified that she was driving on County Route 14 when her vehicle struck a hole in the road which she could not avoid. She stated that she had seen the hole previously but had to try to avoid other holes that were on the road. Ms. McCoy testified that she had called respondent numerous times prior to her incident regarding the holes on County Route 14. Claimant’s vehicle struck a hole sustaining damage to the oil pan totaling $408.33.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on County Route 14 at the site of the claimant’s accident for the date in question. Gary Moore, Assistant Supervisor for respondent in Braxton County, stated that his office had received complaints about holes along County Route 14. He further stated that this is an ongoing problem due to water and a rock cliff that is adj acent to the road in this area.

*44The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins vs. Sims,*130 W.Va. 645; 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. *Chapman vs. Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that respondent had at least constructive notice of the hole which claimant’s vehicle struck and that the hole presented a hazard to the traveling public. Photographs in evidence depict the hole and provide the Court an accurate portrayal of the size and location of the hole on County Route 14. The size of the hole and the time of the year in which claimant’s incident occurred leads the Court to conclude that respondent had notice of this hazardous condition and respondent had an adequate amount of time to take corrective action. Thus, the Court finds respondent negligent and claimant may make a recovery for the damage to her vehicle.

In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated herein above, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to the claimant in this claim in the amount of $408.33.

Award of $408.33.