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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50710

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDUARDO DE LA CRUZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-1928-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eduardo De La Cruz-Rodriguez (De La Cruz) appeals the sentence

imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The

district court sentenced De La Cruz to 35 months of imprisonment on each

count, to run consecutively, for a total of 70 months and a three-year term of

supervised release on each count, to be served concurrently.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-50710 Document: 00512211479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2013
No. 12-50710

De La Cruz argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because

it is based on a clearly erroneous finding that he lied either to the district court

or to the probation officer about his employment status between 2008 and the

time of his arrest. We reject his argument that he preserved this issue for

appeal. Cf. United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir.

2012)(describing circumstances where objection would be futile)1

. Accordingly,

we review De La Cruz’s argument for plain error. See Puckett v. United States,

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 806

(5th Cir. 2008).

Our review of the record as a whole shows that the district court’s finding

is plausible and, thus, not clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Because there is no

clearly erroneous fact, De La Cruz cannot show that the district court clearly or

obviously procedurally erred by basing the sentence on a clearly erroneous fact.2

See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Moreover, nothing in the context of the sentencing

record or in the district court’s statements of its reasons for the sentence

indicates that the district court selected the sentenced imposed based on its

belief that De La Cruz lied.

AFFIRMED.

1 Unlike the situation in that case, here the district judge did not imply that raising

an objection would result in a lengthier sentence.

2 Also as a result, the standard of review is not outcome-determinative here.

2

 Case: 12-50710 Document: 00512211479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2013
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before STEPHENS , STARITA , and DEERWESTER Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Christian M. EPPS Corporal (E

- 4 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 20 2100197

_________________________ Decided: 13 Dec ember 2021 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge s : John P. Norman (arraignment) Derek A. Poteet (trial) Sentence adjudged 18 February 2021 by a special court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton , California , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 100 days , a fine of $ 200 , forfeiture of $ 900 pay per mo nth for 6 months , and a bad

- conduct discharge. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Daniel O. Moore , JAGC, USNUnited States v. Epps , NMCCA No. 20 2100197 O pinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_____________________ ____ PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 1 T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

Order 

April 15, 2016

152409

152442

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152409

COA: 320867

Roscommon CC: 12-006736-FC

WILLIAM FRANK SIKORSKI, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 152442

COA: 320867

Roscommon CC: 12-006736-FC

WILLIAM FRANK SIKORSKI, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the June 4, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu 

of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment 

concluding that the defendant’s conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct under 

MCL 750.520b(1)(d)(ii) violates the double jeopardy protections of the United States and 

Michigan Constitutions and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

reconsideration of whether this conviction was based on the same act of penetration as 

the defendant’s conviction under MCL 750.520b(1)(c), given the manner in which the 

jury was instructed as to each count after the close of proofs. If, upon reconsideration, 

the Court of Appeals concludes that no double jeopardy violation occurred, it shall reach 

and resolve the defendant’s challenge to whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain 

his conviction under MCL 750.520b(1)(d)(ii). 
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 15, 2016

d0412

2

Clerk

We also VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment denying the 

defendant sentencing relief on the basis of People v Herron, 303 Mich App 392 (2013), 

and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of People 

v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). 

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Exhibit 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
               RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas M. Finn, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Speedus Corp.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

(5) The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:   November 14, 2003


By:     /s/ Thomas M. Finn
        ------------------
Name:   Thomas M. Finn
Title:  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


                                       19
No. 90-6046.

#### Tebbets *v.*City of Overland Park, Kansas.

Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tajine Benning, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1010]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The contention that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation has not been preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Given the brutal nature of the crime, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Finally, the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that defense counsel provided meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147; *see also, People v Trait,*139 AD2d 937, 938, *lv denied*72 NY2d 867). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. —Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsMemoranda of Understanding

# Memoranda of Understanding - 2016

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2013
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Burks, Sr., Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 354]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that defendant’s absence from a *Sandoval*and *Ventimiglia*conference warrants reversal. Subsequent proceedings held in open court in defendant’s presence constituted a de novo *Sandoval*and *Ventimiglia*hearing *(see, People v Vargas,*201 AD2d 963, *lv denied*83 NY2d 859; *People v Russell,*191 AD2d 1001, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1019; *People v Berger,*188 AD2d 1073, 1074, *lv denied*81 NY2d 881). (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Scheme to Defraud, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
No. 82-1122.

#### Johmann *v.*Johmann.

Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
Order entered November I, 2012

In The

NO. 05-12-00595-CV BILLY AND CANDACE SCHOPPE, Appellants V. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-09-I0731



### ORDER The Court has before it appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Loan Trust 2005-7’s October 24, 2012 unopposed motion to extend time to file its brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the brief tendered by appellee on October 24, 2012 be timely filed as of today’s date.

MOLLY JUSTICE
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 Agriculture

###### Agricultural Research Service

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of intent.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln of Lincoln, Nebraska, an exclusive license to the smooth bromegrass variety named “NEWELL”.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Government's rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Mojdeh Bahar,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2015-00950 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
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

# USS Zumwalt Visits Alaska During 3rd Fleet Operations 

By MC2 Natalie M. ByersU.S. 3rd Fleet, U.S. 3rd Fleet Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
### Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-               Reports          

# Reports - NRC

April 11, 2024

### Audit of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Safety Inspections of Class II Research and Test Reactors

March 26, 2024

### Special Inquiry into the Appearance of a Conflict of Interest Involving Members of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes

March 25, 2024

### Audit of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Security Oversight of Category 1 and  Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material

February 21, 2024

### Audit of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Uranium Recovery Licensing Process

February 21, 2024

### Audit of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Implementation of the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 for Fiscal Year 2023 Region II: Atlanta, Georgia

January 25, 2024

### Audit of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Implementation of the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 for Fiscal Year 2023 Region I: King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

December 1, 2023

### Semiannual Report to Congress April 1, 2023—September 30, 2023 

November 20, 2023

### Annual Plan Fiscal Year 2024

The Annual Plan provides the audit and investigative strategies and associated summaries of the specific work planned for the coming year.In addition, it sets forth the OIG’s formal process for identifying priority issues and managing its workload and resources for FY 2024. Since 2014, the NRC OIG has also been assigned to serve as the OIG for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. A separate document contains the OIG’s Annual Plan for our work pertaining to that agency.

November 9, 2023

### Results of the Independent Auditor’s Report of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2023

November 3, 2023

### The Inspector General’s Assessment of the Most Serious Management and Performance Challenges Facing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Fiscal Year 2024

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
- …
-              42           
-   Next  

## Filter Options
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-50637 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. NICHOLAS SCOTT HUTCHENS, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:11-CR-841-1

Before KING, DeMOSS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nicholas Scott Hutchens appeals the sentence i m p o s e d f o l l o w i n g h is guilty plea c onviction of failure t o r egister u nder the Sex Offender R e g i s t r a t ion and N otification A ct. H e argues that the 25-year, within-guidelines t e r m o f supervised release imposed by the district cou r t i s u n r easonable because the sentence overstates the seriousness of the instant offense and fails to t ake into U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Nov em ber 25, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-50637 Document: 00512452903 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2013No. 12-50637

account the nature and age of his original sex offenses, h is personal characteristics, and his reasons for failing to register. 1 A p resum p t i o n of reasonableness applies to a within-guidelines term of supervised release. United States v. Cancino-Trinidad , 710 F.3d 601, 607 (5th Cir. 2013). “The presumption is r ebutted o nly upon a showing that the s entence does n ot account for a f a ctor that should receive s ignificant w eight, it gives sig n i f i c a nt weight to an irrelevant or i m proper factor, or it represents a clear

error of judgment i n balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Hutchens’s general disagreement with the propriety of the sentence and the district court’s weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the p resumption of reasonableness that attaches t o his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Camero-Renobato , 670 F.3d 633, 6 36 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

1 H utchens als o argues that the w ritten jud g m e n t d o e s not conf orm to the oral p ronouncem ent of the sentence. H ow ever, this is s ue is now m oot as the d i s t r i c t c o u r t has conf orm ed the w ritten jud gm ent to the oral p ronouncem ent of the s entence f ollow ing a lim ited rem and f

or that p urp os e. 2 Case: 12-50637 Document: 00512452903 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2013