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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41505

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS GERARDO CASAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-2897-4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Gerardo Casarez, federal prisoner # 55129-279, pleaded guilty to 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1000 kilograms of 

marijuana and he was sentenced to 73 months of imprisonment. He now 

appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, arguing, 

inter alia, that the district court erred by failing to afford him the opportunity 

to review and comment on the § 3582(c)(2) addendum to the presentence report 

 

* 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

November 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41505 Document: 00513750894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2016
No. 15-41505

2

that was reviewed by the district court in its consideration of his motion. 

Casarez contends that he did not receive notice of the § 3582(c)(2) addendum

until after he reviewed arguments set forth in the Government’s brief in the 

instant appeal. He further argues that the district court’s reasons for denying 

his motion were inadequate and do not allow meaningful appellate review.

A district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under 

§ 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 

F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). In the order denying relief, the district court 

expressly acknowledged that it considered Casarez’s motion, the relevant 

policy statements of the Guidelines, and the sentencing factors of § 3553(a). 

See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). The district court was 

not required to expressly refer to specific § 3553(a) factors or provide more 

specific reasons in support of its determination that a reduction was not 

warranted. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 718 (5th Cir. 2011). 

However, Casarez was entitled to an opportunity to review and comment on 

the § 3582(c)(2) addendum prior to the district court’s ruling, see United States 

v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir.1999), and the record does not suggest 

that he was provided this opportunity. Also, on this record, this court cannot 

determine whether any error was harmless. See id.

Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and 

REMAND for further proceedings. We express no opinion on the disposition of 

Casarez’s motion on remand. Casarez’s motions for expedited ruling and to 

supplement the record on appeal are DENIED.

 Case: 15-41505 Document: 00513750894 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2016
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 94777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28010]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 29, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 22, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 789 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-493, K2025-490.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-28010 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of

Apple Hospitality
Two, Inc.

At December 31, 2003



(The state of incorporation or organization of each subsidiary

is Virginia, except as noted)



|A. | Direct Subsidiaries
|-- | -------------------



AHT Redmond, Inc.

AHT Res I GP, Inc.

AHT Res II GP, Inc.

AHT Res
III GP, Inc.

AHT Res I LP, Inc.

AHT Res II LP, Inc.

AHT Res III LP, Inc.

AHT-SPE I GP, Inc.

AHT-SPE II GP, Inc.

Apple Hospitality Management, Inc.

Apple Res
III Corporation *

Apple Suites, Inc.

Apple Suites Advisors, Inc.



|B. | Indirect Subsidiaries (held through direct subsidiaries or other indirect subsidiaries)
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AHM Res I GP, Inc.

AHM Res II GP, Inc.

AHM Res I LP, Inc.

AHM Res II LP, Inc.

AHM Res I Limited Partnership

AHM Res II Limited Partnership

AHM-SPE I,
Inc.

AHT-SPE I Limited Partnership

AHT-SPE II Limited Partnership

Apple Suites General, Inc.

Apple Suites LP, Inc.

Apple Suites
Management, Inc.

Apple Suites-MO, LLC

Apple Suites Pennsylvania Business Trust **

Apple Suites REIT Limited Partnership

Apple Suites SPE I, Inc.

Apple Suites SPE
II, Inc.

Apple Suites SPE III, Inc.

Apple Suites SPE IV, Inc.

Apple Suites SPE V, Inc.

Apple Suites SPE Holding, Inc.

Apple Suites Services General, Inc.

Apple Suites Services Limited, Inc.

Apple
Suites Services Limited Partnership

Bossier Res II GP, Inc.

Bossier Res II LP, Inc.

Bossier Res II Limited Partnership

Bossier RIBM Two, Inc. *

Bossier RIBM Two
LLC *



54



---

Marriott Residence Inn Limited Partnership *

Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership *

Marriott Residence Inn USA Limited Partnership *

Residence Inn III LLC *



|* | State of organization is Delaware.
|- | ----------------------------------

|** | State of organization is Pennsylvania.
|-- | --------------------------------------



55
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Scafidi, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 186]

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered June 3, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree under Indictment No. 7433/92, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 3, 1993, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Jones, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of assault in the second degree under Indictment No. 13366/90.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the waiver of the defendant’s right to be present at side-bar conferences during jury selection was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary *(see, People v Epps,*37 NY2d 343, 349-350, *cert denied*423 US 999; *People v Underwood,*201 AD2d 597).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by permitting a witness who had not previously identified the defendant to identify him in court. The defendant’s counsel cross-examined the witness and explored the weaknesses and suggestiveness of his in-court identification *(see, People v Medina,*208 AD2d 771, 772; *People v Bradley,*154 AD2d 609, 610).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or do not require reversal. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
No. 90-6087.

#### Wright *v.*Vermont.

Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari denied.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Wasp ARG, 31st MEU Conduct Defense of the Amphibious Task Force Drill in the South China Sea

31st Marine Expeditionary Unit

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
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 Annual Report of Winsted  Holdings,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ended  December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Mark Ellis, 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) 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.

              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.

         Date: April 28, 2006
                                   /s/  Mark Ellis
                                   -----------------------------------------
                                   Mark Ellis, Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Mark J. Emkjer, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of Accelrys, Inc. (the “Company”) and I, John J.Hanlon, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/Mark J. Emkjer                      |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Mark J.  Emkjer                        |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                   |
|   |                                   |
|   | /s/John J. Hanlon                      |   |
|   | John J.  Hanlon                        |
|   | Executive  Vice President              |
|   | and Chief  Financial Officer           |
|   |                                   |
|   |                                   |
|   | November 9,  2004                      |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Lee Carter, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 735]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered October 20, 1993, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By decision and order of this Court dated April 3, 1995, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hold a reconstruction hearing to determine whether the defendant was present at a *Sandoval*hearing conducted on September 1, 1993, and to file a report with this Court, and the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim *(see, People v Carter,*214 AD2d 582). The Supreme Court has now filed its report.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At the reconstruction hearing the parties stipulated that the defendant was in fact present at the *Sandoval*hearing. Accordingly, the defendant’s previous contentions to the contrary are unavailing.

Equally without merit are the defendant’s arguments that the People adduced legally insufficient evidence that the complainant sustained physical injury. The complainant testified that during the course of the robbery the defendant and his accomplices repeatedly punched and kicked him, causing him to sustain cuts, bruises, and swelling. The complainant *733received medical treatment and he further testified that he suffered "a lot” of pain for several weeks. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Bogan,*70 NY2d 860; *People v Thomas,*195 AD2d 581; *People v Powell,*181 AD2d 924). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

FERNANDO A. CABA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-5369 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed July 14, 2017. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Sarasota County; Thomas Krug, Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Affirmed without prejudice to file a facially sufficient motion. See Saffold v. 

State, 850 So. 2d 574, 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). 

NORTHCUTT, CRENSHAW, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Argued and submitted October 10,

affirmed as modified December 3, 1979

#### LAMBERSON, *Petitioner, v.*TEKTRONIX, INC., et al, *Respondents.*

(No. 77-7238, CA 14751)

602 P2d 1170

Robert Udziela, Portland, argued the cause for peti-loner. On the brief were Donald R. Wilson and Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, Kahn & O’Leary, Portland.

James M. Callahan, Portland, argued the cause for •espondent. With him on the brief were Frank A. doscato and Gearin, Landis & Aebi, Portland.

Before Tanzer, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Campbell, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*479PER CURIAM.

We agree with the reasoning of the Workers’ Compensation Board but increase the award to 75 percent f unscheduled permanent disability. *Owen v. SAIF,*33 Or App 385, 576 P2d 821 (1978).

Affirmed as modified.
Inthe Matter of HARRIS CRAIG LEGOME PER 

### CURIAM IN THESUPREME COURT OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA

: No.2344 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Board File No. 

### C1-16-785 (SupremeCourt of New

### Jersey, : No. D-130

### SeptemberTerm 2015) : 

### Attorney Registration No. 63113 (OutofState) 

### ORDER AND NOW, this 19th 

### day of May, 2017, the 

### Application for Relief is 

### granted. Upon 

### consideration of the 

### responses to a Notice and 

### Order directing Harris Craig Legome to 

### provide reasons against the 

### imposition of a 

### disbarment reciprocal to that imposed by the 

### Supreme Court of New Jersey, Harris Craig 

### Legome is 

### disbarred from the 

### practice of law in this 

### Commonwealth, and he shall 

### comply with allthe 

### provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999 
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999 
<CASH>                                      1,549,597
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                 339,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                   45,061
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,889,345 
<PP&E>                                        364,469
<DEPRECIATION>                                 20,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,254,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         298,905
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                        12
<COMMON>                                        7,831
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,947,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                2,254,729
<SALES>                                       394,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              394,063
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1,392,416
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (974,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (974,321)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                (974,321)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.12)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Resolution Performance Products LLC and
RPP Capital Corporation (the Companies) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Marvin O. Schlanger, Chief Executive Officer and
I, J. Travis Spoede, Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigneds knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Companies. By:
    
    /s/ Marvin O. Schlanger, CEO
    
    By:
    
    /s/ J. Travis Spoede, CFOMarvin O. Schlanger
    
    J. Travis SpoedeChief Executive Officer
    
    Chief Financial OfficerMarch 16, 2004
    
    March 16, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Commerce

###### Bureau of Economic Analysis

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics Administration, Department of Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of Public Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended by Pub. L. 94-409, Pub. L. 96-523, Pub. L. 97-375 and Pub. L. 105-153), we are announcing a meeting of the Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee. The meeting will address ways in which the national economic accounts can be presented more effectively for current economic analysis and recent statistical developments in national accounting.

# DATES:

Friday, May 8, the meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will take place at the Bureau of Economic Analysis at 1441 L St. NW., Washington, DC.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gianna Marrone, Program Analyst, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone number: (202) 606-9633.

Public Participation: This meeting is open to the public. Because of security procedures, anyone planning to attend the meeting must contact Gianna Marrone of BEA at (202) 606-9633 in advance. The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for foreign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gianna Marrone at (202) 606-9633.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Committee was established September 2, 1999. The Committee advises the Director of BEA on matters related to the development and improvement of BEA's national, regional, industry, and international economic accounts, especially in areas of new and rapidly growing economic activities arising from innovative and advancing technologies, and provides recommendations from the perspectives of the economics profession, business, and government. This will be the Committee's twenty-eighth meeting.

Dated: January 7, 2015.

Brian C. Moyer,

Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

[FR Doc. 2015-00900 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases

# NRC Names New Resident Inspector at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 04, 2021