alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 29, 2013

Decided August 29, 2013

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 12‐2576

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

NIMIONWANTUE IDAHOR,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin.

No. 11‐CR‐240‐JPS

J.P. Stadtmueller,

Judge.

O R D E R

Nimionwantue Idahor, a Nigerian citizen, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to

defraud the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 371, by making, selling, and delivering

counterfeit‐U.S. currency, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 470, 472, 473, and was sentenced to 48‐

months’ imprisonment. Idahor filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer asserts

that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 744 (1967). Idahor has declined to respond to counsel’s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). We

confine our review to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief.

See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973–74 (7th Cir. 2002).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 12‐2576 Page 2

Counsel has determined that Idahor does not want his guilty plea set aside, and

thus counsel appropriately omits discussion about the adequacy of the plea colloquy

and the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671–72 (7th Cir.

2002).

Counsel has not identified any basis to dispute the district court’s application of

the sentencing guidelines, leaving only the possibility of challenging the reasonableness

of the sentence, an argument that counsel correctly labels as frivolous. Idahor’s 48‐

month sentence—within his guidelines range of 46 to 57 months—is presumed

reasonable on appeal, see United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778, 792 (7th Cir. 2012), and

counsel cannot identify any reason to disturb that presumption. The district court

explicitly rejected Idahor’s principal argument in mitigation—that he lacked legitimate

economic opportunities in Nigeria—on grounds that his plight did not excuse his

misconduct and disrespect for American law. And the court considered the appropriate

sentencing factors, weighing, on the one hand, the hardships Idahor’s family faced in

Nigeria, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and on the other hand, the multitude of victims,

duration of the criminal activity, and serious financial implications of the offense, see id.

§ 3553(a)(2)(A); the need to protect the public, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(C); and the need to

deter Idahor and others from committing similar crimes, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(B).

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
State ofArkansas Jurisdiction: 

# M ouata(

# n

# VieIll 

# Cd'1 Type oflevy: _ _!L.,o,ca.,I_,S"'al"'es'-'a"n"'duU,;;s,e_,_Ta,x;__ Enactment Date:



# ~'23~9,'! Ordinance No.



# _'b"--J1L~~3..,_____ Tax Rate: 

### -=-'.::· 

## 0=-- Purpose and Use ofTax: 

## JYIU.Y\iCjpal 

# sefVf(es Applicability ofTax: General sales & use tax- Applies to all goods and services taxable under state law. Administrative Costs: 3% ofgross collections withheld bythe statefor administration ofthetax. Credits orExemptions: Tax subjectto same credits & exemptions available under state sales & use tax law SubsequentAmendments and Amendment Purpose: L Date: ---------- Amending Ordinance No.----------- Purpose ofAmendment: 2. Date: ---------- Amending Ordinance No.----------- Purpose ofAmendment: 3. Date: ---------- Amending Ordinance No.----------- Purpose ofAmendment: 4. Date: ---------- Amending Ordinance No.----------- Purpose ofAmendment: 1 Is the tax on aviation fuel distributed for airport related purposes: Yes or No 

# 7 IfNo, state reason for beliefthatthetax is grandfathered.



# th~ 

# oYJgfnal

# tuwas not

# sub6tanh:;.t/lyeh.anaecl

Sl

# nee 1fs

# enactMent The state ofArkansas administers local taxesfor all cities and counties in this state and commits thatthe Arkansas DepartmentofFinance and Administration will notify the FAA ofany subsequentamendments tothis taxthatcould affectgrandfathered status.
John H. Theis, Assistant Revenue Commissioner DateORDINANCE NO.__§J;}_ ______ _ ANORO!NANCE LEVYING A ONE PERCENT(!%) SALES AND USE TAX WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, ARKANSAS. WHEREAS, the city of Mountain View currently has no city sales tax; and WHEREAS, the city of Mountain View wishes to adopt a one percent (1%) sales tax for the public welfare of the inhabitants of the city and to promote capital improvements of a public nature; THEREFORE, be it Ordained by the City Council of the city of Mountain View, Arkansas: 

### Section I The city of Mountain View hereby levys a one percent (1%) sales and use tax to be applied within the corporate limits of the city of Mountain View. Section l I Said tax shall be levied on receipts from the sale at retail within said city of all items which are subject to taxation under the Arkansas Gross Receipts Tax Act of 1941, Act 386 of the 1941 Acts of Arkansas, as said act has been

**hereto~ore** or may be hereinafter amended.

**~** Section III Said tax shall be levied and collected only to a maximum of twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) on each single transaction. Section IV That the prov1S1ons of this ordinance are separable and if a section, phrase, or provision shall be declared invalid such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance.Section V 

### WHEREAS, there is a great need for a steady source of revenue to provide vital municipal services, 

### it is hereby declared a emergency exists and this 

### tax will take effect after its passage, approval, and. publication. Passed this 13th d-ay of February, 1987. ·



### Attest: City Record r

'1;.. 

### .. '.,

**:~**
Raleigh, NC Site

Information Provided by Nick Scappini, HaloSource

08/26/2010 01:31 AM

Jesse-this is from a Raleigh site with NTUs at 2500-3000 and we were able to achieve with the Dual 

Polymer System NTU levels of under 20! It will get repetitive but this new technology can treat literally 

any soil at any turbidity level, any ph level with a simple trash pump, some pvc and some sort of low 

grade filtration like a geotextile bag or waddle. WE have yet to get any NTU readings above 40NTU. 

Attached is multiple projects we have done with Hanes over the past couple of months with the exact 

same treatment train you see in the pics and have seen in the drawings.

NCDOT2

NCDOT3 NCDOT4
NCDOT5 NCDOT6

NCDOT7
Reducing NTU with StormKlear Dual Biopolymer Systems

Memphis, TN (TDOT)

1200 NTU influent

200 gpm ‐ 2.5 mg/L: 20 NTU

Jacksonville, NC (NCDENR)

300 NTU influent (discharge to marsh)

300 gpm ‐ 2.0 mg/L: 15 NTU

Birmingham, AL (Grand River)

1500 NTU influent

600 gpm – 3.0 mg/L: 20 NTU

Raleigh, NC (NCDOT I‐540)

2500‐3000 NTU influent

200 gpm – 5.0 mg/L: 14 NTU

Austin, TX (City of Austin)

600 NTU influent

300 gpm – 5.0 mg/L:10 NTU

Annapolis, MD (AA County & MDE)

300 NTU influent

300 gpm – 5.0 mg/L: 15 NTU

Dewatering activities are becoming more scrutinized these days, especially  given the new Effluent

Limitation Guidelines enacted by EPA and Congress late last year. However, with a simple setup using a

PVC manifold and StormKlear’s New Dual Biopolymer System in 1 kg Segmented Geosynthetic Socks,

you can consistently achieve discharge NTU levels that rival full active treatment for a fraction of the

cost.

For additional information or to schedule an on‐site demonstration, give us a call or send an email

with the project details to: bobby.starling@hanescompanies.com

Recent trials:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

I n the Matter of

BARRY JAY BERAN, A/K/A BARRY J.

BERAN :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2952 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 25 DB 2023

(Supreme Court of New Jersey, D

- 120 September Term 2021)

Attorney Registration No. 35896

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3 rd day of May , 2023

, having failed to respond to a Notice and

Order directing him to provide reasons against the imposition of reciprocal discipline,

Barry Jay Beran, a/k/a Barry J. Beran, is suspended from the practice of law in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a period of five years, consecutive to the three

- year

term of suspension ordered by this Court on October 5, 2022. He shall comply with the

provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
*February 15, 1944.*

#### Pusch, Respondent, vs. Pusch, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Alvin G. Brendenmehl*of Oconomowoc.

For the respondent: *Geo. A. Hartman*of Juneau and *Lueck, Skupnieimts & Lueck*of Beaver Dam.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer
of First Niles Financial, Inc. (the Registrant) that the Annual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Registrant for such period.

Date: March 31, 2006



/s/ William L. StephensWilliam L. StephensPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Lawrence SafarekLawrence SafarekVice President and Treasurer(Chief Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 21
  NAME OF SUBSIDIARY
    
    STATE OF ORGANIZATIONSuperior Bank
    
    Federally chartered thrift institutionTBC Realty Holdings Corporation
    
    AlabamaTBC Real Estate Investment Company, Inc.
    
    AlabamaSuperior Financial Management, Inc.
    
    AlabamaSFS, LLC
    
    AlabamaSuperior Financial Services, LLC
    
    Alabama1st Community Credit Corporation
    
    AlabamaCommunity Insurance Corp.
    
    AlabamaSouthern Select Insurance, Inc.
    
    AlabamaMorris Avenue Management Group, Inc.
    
    AlabamaSuperior Capital Trust I
    
    Delaware business trustTBC Capital Statutory Trust II
    
    Connecticut business trustPeoples Community Statutory Trust I
    
    Delaware business trustCommunity (AL) Capital Trust I
    
    Delaware business trust
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    /s/ Jeffrey L. McWatersJeffrey L. McWatersChairman and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 1, 2006/s/ Sherri E. LeeSherri E. LeeExecutive Vice President,
ChiefFinancial Officer and TreasurerDate: March 1, 2006 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION  I,  Melissa Schessler as Secretary and Treasurer (CFO),  certify  that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Meltdown Massage and Body Works, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by       others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control financial reporting;  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: November 19, 2008 By: /s/ Melissa Schessler Melissa Schessler, Secretary and Treasurer (CFO)
Exhibit 32.01
  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 Central European Media Enterprises Ltd
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), we, Michael Garin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Wallace Macmillan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:
 
 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 Company
      as of the dates and for the periods explained in the
    report.
 
 
  /s/ Michael
      Garin
                /s/ Wallace
      MacmillanMichael
      Garin
                Wallace
      MacmillanChief
      Executive Officer
                Chief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      22, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                   Jul-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                22,000
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      4,072,000
<ALLOWANCES>                       1,362,000
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   6,056,000
<PP&E>                             7,072,000
<DEPRECIATION>                     5,503,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    12,415,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              8,083,000
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               1,000
<OTHER-SE>                         4,275,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      12,445,000
<SALES>                            2,534,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   2,534,000
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      3,086,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   132,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (684,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                         (42,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (642,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (642,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.53)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                       402,334
<SECURITIES>                 1,566,175
<RECEIVABLES>                1,201,919
<ALLOWANCES>                 7,700    
<INVENTORY>                  1,952,740
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             5,374,136
<PP&E>                       1,123,821
<DEPRECIATION>               349,575
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               9,801,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        2,862,782
<BONDS>                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0
<PREFERRED>                  380
<COMMON>                     11,536
<OTHER-SE>                   6,168,569
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 9,801,797
<SALES>                      2,824,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             2,824,497
<CGS>                        1,437,566
<TOTAL-COSTS>                1,437,566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           30,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (646,552)
<INCOME-TAX>                 32,539
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (679,091)
<DISCONTINUED>               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              0
<CHANGES>                    0
<NET-INCOME>                 (686,692)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                (.24)
#### Gross, Respondent, vs. Mink and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Harry V. Meissner*and *Lamfrom, Tighe, Engelhard & Peck,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *A. W. Richter*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,181,256
<SECURITIES>                                 5,501,589
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,044,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                    69,698
<INVENTORY>                                     19,780
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,255,086
<PP&E>                                       1,491,837
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,070,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,155,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,634,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,006,013
<OTHER-SE>                                     406,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,155,440
<SALES>                                      2,610,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,610,717
<CGS>                                          568,261
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  679,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,932,222
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                124,847
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,682
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             86,165
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,165
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 549 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 549

   To redesignate the Coronado National Forest in honor of Morris K. 
        Udall, a former Member of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 4, 1999

  Mr. McCain introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To redesignate the Coronado National Forest in honor of Morris K. 
        Udall, a former Member of the House of Representatives.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, ARIZONA, IN HONOR 
              OF MORRIS K. UDALL.

    (a) Redesignation.--The Coronado National Forest in the State of 
Arizona is hereby redesignated as the ``Morris K. Udall National 
Forest'' in honor of former Representative Morris K. Udall.
    (b) References.--Any reference to the Coronado National Forest in 
any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the 
United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Morris K. 
Udall National Forest.
                                 <all>
```