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

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-2544

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kayla Dee Jeffries

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central 

____________ 

Submitted: March 11, 2024

Filed: July 12, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, ERICKSON and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

 An Iowa trooper pulled over Kayla Dee Jeffries and found more than nine 

kilograms of methamphetamine in her U-Haul. She pleaded guilty to possessing 

with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, 21 
-2- 

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court1 varied down from a Guidelines 

range of 135 to 168 months in prison and sentenced her to 108 months. Jeffries 

appeals, arguing that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

We review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Levy, 18 F.4th 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses 

its discretion when it “fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received 

significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or 

commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors.” Id. (citation 

omitted). Where, as here, the court varies below the Guidelines, we presume that 

the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Barraza, 982 F.3d 1106, 1116 (8th Cir. 

2020). It is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion by not varying 

down even further. Id. (citation omitted).

Jeffries argues that the district court should have given greater weight to her 

mitigating circumstances: she suffered childhood trauma, had a history of drug use, 

was a victim of domestic and sexual abuse, relinquished her parental rights over her 

children, and tried to cooperate with the Government before her drug dealing got in 

the way. The court recognized that she had “suffered major trauma, both as a child 

and as an adult,” and had “severe addiction issues.” But it concluded that 108 

months was the appropriate sentence because she had committed a “serious offense” 

involving a lot of drugs and had received lenient sentences in the past, showing that 

a longer one was “necessary this time.” Its decision to “assign relatively greater 

weight” than she would have liked to the seriousness of her offense and the need to 

deter her from committing crimes was well within its discretion. See United States 

v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764, 774 (8th Cir. 2011). 

We affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of Iowa.
* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-10568 Summary Calendar

_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRE LEFELL REESE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CR-65-ALL

December 10, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Andre Lefell Reese contends that he is entitled to a new trial

on the ground that the Government presented testimony obtained in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), which prohibits an offer or

promise of “anything of value” in exchange for a witness’

testimony. Reese contends that the Government violated § 201(c)(2)

by agreeing not to prosecute a witness for unrelated charges and by

compensating her for relocation expenses in exchan ge for her

testimony against Reese. S ee United States v. Singleton

, 144 F.3d

1343, 1358-61 (10th Cir. 1998), vacated and reh’g en banc granted

,- 2 -

144 F.3d 1361-66 (July 10, 1998). Because Reese did not move the

district court to suppress the testimony at issue on the ground

that it was ob tained in violation of § 201(c)(2), he has waived

this argument for purposes of appeal. S ee United States v. ChavezValencia

, 116 F.3d 127, 128-33 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 118 S. Ct.

325 (1997); F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 12(b)(3).

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF OFFICER


OF AML
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


PURSUANT
TO 18 USC § 1350





Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) the undersigned officer of AML Communications,
Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





(a)
            The
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 of
      the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




(b)
            Information
      contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.





Dated:
February 13, 2009





/s/ Heera
Lee


By: Heera
Lee,


Director
of Finance


(Principal
Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7677

DAMON DADE, a/k/a Johnny, Defendant - Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00425-JCC-1)

Submitted: D ecember 16, 2008 Decided: December 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Dade, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Damon Dade seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dade has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Dade’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
CHILDTIME LEARNING CENTERS, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
JANUARY 8, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-08-1999
<CASH>                                           2,830
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                       245
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,894
<PP&E>                                          46,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,816
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,446
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,876
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (265)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 237
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,117
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,496
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Development of Technical Basis for Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures (NUREG/CR-6765)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6765 (PDF 15.05 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** October 2001**Date Published:** May 2002

**Prepared by:** P. M. Scott1, R. J. Olson1 G. M. Wilkowski2

1Battelle 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201

**Subcontractor:**2Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus 3518 Riverside Drive Suite 202 Columbus, OH 43221-1735

C. Santos, Jr., NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code W6854

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In the mid 1980's the USNRC began to accept LBB for large-diameter, high quality piping systems as a means of enhancing safety. To aide NRC staff in evaluating LBB submittals, a draft Standard Review Plan (SRP) entitled "Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures" was published in 1987. Because of ongoing research, this draft SRP was never published in final form. Now that that research is nearly complete, the NRC has decided to develop and issue a LBB Regulatory Guide. A final version of SRP 3.6.3 will follow publication of the Regulatory Guide. These documents will address updated, acceptable LBB analyses. Consequently, in 1997 the NRC contracted with Battelle to conduct a study entitled "Technical Support for Regulatory Guide on LBB Evaluation Procedures". During this study, a three-tiered approach to LBB was developed. Level 1 is the simplest level of assessment, designed to provide a conservative LBB evaluation. Level 2 is similar to the draft SRP procedures, except it incorporates enhancements in technology that have resulted from recent research. Level 3 is the most complex level of assessment, where nonlinear stress analyses are used to take advantage of margins that exist when one invokes elastic analysis on a nonlinear problem. Case studies of actual piping systems were conducted to ascertain the relative conservatism of the three levels of assessment.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### ROB’T. H. AUSTIN, County Treasurer, *v.*HENRY T. CLARKE

All questions of practice and procedure as to amendments and continuances arising on atrial in the Court below, are nrthe discretion of the presiding Judge, from whose judgment thereon there is no appeal.

C. C. P. sec. 133.

Civil actjoN, motion to file an amended answer, tried by *Moore, J.,*at the Fall Term, 1873, of the Superior Court of EdgecoMbe County.

The plaintiff', Treasurer of Edgecembe County sued the defendant, the former Chairman of the Court of Pleas and. Quarter Sessions of that county, for the balance of a fund in his hands, belonging to the county. Defendant answers the complaint, and the plaintiff demurred to the answer. Ilis .Honor sustained the demurrer, whereupon the plaintiff moves for judgment, and defendant moves for time to file amended answer. The plaintiff’s motion is refused and time given to defendant.

From this judgment plaintiff appealed.

*459
      *Battle cé Son,*for appellant.

No counsel *contra*in this Court.

ByNüM, J.

The C. C. P. invests the Court with ample powers, in all questions of practice and procedure, both as to amendments and continuances, to be exercised at the discretion of the J udge presiding, who is presumed’, best, to know what orders and what indulgence will promote the ends of justice, in each particular case- With the exercise of this discretion, we cannot interfere, and it is not the subject of appeal. C. C. P., sec. 133.

There is no error.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.
April 4, 2014 

# Northern Maine Development Commission

Kevin Schlemmer, Chief Essential Air Service Division Office ofAviation Analysis United States Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 64171 Washington, D.C. 20590 ,-

.....; ,""~J

_ 

## .. , Subject: Comments on Pen Air Essential Air Service Bid w

Dear Mr. Schlemmer: Northern Maine Development Commission, a private, non-profit SOl (c) (3) organization with a mission statement of "an innovative and effective regional agency delivering planning, economic and community development services to all nOlthern Maine communities," strongly recommend adoption of the Pen Air EAS bid, Option 2. Option 2 addresses several concerns from business trave.1ers,who need early morning departures and late day arrivals. Option I would make it almost impossible for business travelers to reach the largest business markets on the east coast in one day, adding expense to conducting business from northern Maine and hampering economic development inthis 'region. Option 2, is similar to the schedule used by Colgan Air dba US Airways Express for the majority ofthei!' II year tenure at PQI before leaving the market in June of20 12. According to PQI officials, the recommended schedule seeks to address the significant decline in boardings of20% and several complaints received by the local business community. These complaints stem from the significant shortening of the airline operational day by Pen Air. NMDC encourages USDOT to incorporate this revised schedule in their final agreement with Pen Air. Ifyou have any questions, feel fl'ee to give me a call at (207) 493-5762. Sincerely,

Bob Clark Executive Director NMDC

www.nmdc.org Equal OVPOI'tIlIlUX Lender/Agenc)' II WestPresqueIsle Rd." POBox779,Carihou,ME 04736 Voice:(207)498-8736,TollFreeinME: 1-800-427-8736,Fax:(207)493-3108,TTY:(207)498-6377 

# qlAroostOOk Partnership for Progress
<PAGE>



                                                                    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 Globix Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert M.
Dennerlein, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: February 4, 2004

                                                 /s/  Robert M. Dennerlein
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Robert M. Dennerlein
                                                 Chief Financial Officer








                                       20
#### In re Claim of Blunk against Estate of Meyer: Blunk, Claimant, Respondent, vs. Meyer, Executor, Appellant.

For the appellant: *L. J. Fellens*and *Reilly & Cosgrove,*all of Fond du JLac.

For the respondent: *Eberlein & McCarthy*of Shawano.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### A. G. HUNSUCKER v. JOHN FARMER and WM. P. FARMER.

The declarations of a lessee, (not a party to the action,) concerning the lease and the transactions between himself and the defendant, are not admissible in evidence in an action between such defendant and a third party, in which a counter claim is set up growing out of an assignment of the lease.

Civil Action, commencing in a Justice’s Court, and carried by appeal to the Superior Court of Chebokee county, and there tried before *Cannon, J.,*at Eall Term, *Í*874.

*373The complaint of the plaintiff is founded on a bond, execu-tad by the defendants for a certain tract of land.

In the answer the defendants set up a counter-claim, growing out of a lease to one Bates, and the alleged assignment of that lease to the defendants, for rents due thereunder, after the sale of the land to them by the plaintiff.

On the trial below, several questions arose and were decided by the Court, which, not being considered in this Court, it is unnecessary to notice.

The case states, that the defendants offered to prove the declarations of Bates, the lessee, concerning the lease and the transaction between him and defendants, after the sale of the land, and while Bates was in possession under the lease, for the purpose of showing, they had used due diligence in endeavoring to collect the rents. This, in reply to the position of the plaintiff, that at best, he was only a guarantor. The plaintiff objected to this evidence, but it was received by his-Honor, whereupou plaintiff excepted.

There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants.

Plaintiff appealed.

*Battle*d? *Son.*for appellant.'

*A. T.*iff *T. F.*Davidson, contra.

Reade, J.

The rule is that the declarations of a third person are but hearsay, and not evidence. The person himself ought to be introduced as a witness. There are some exceptions to this rule, but there is nothing to bring the declaration of Bates within the exceptions. They were offered to prove a “ transaction,” and that the defendant had used “ due diligence ” in endeavoring to collect a debt, which plaintiff' alleged he was bound for, if at all, only as guarantor.

As this error entitles the plaintiff to a new trial, it is not necessary to decide other points raised, as they will probably be avoided on the next trial.

There is error. *Venire de novo.*

Pee CuRIAm. *Venire de novo.*
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2145 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2145

 To prohibit licenses or other authorization for United States persons 
  to engage in activities relating to deepwater, Arctic offshore, or 
 shale projects that have the potential to produce oil in the Russian 
Federation, or in maritime area claimed by the Russian Federation, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2017

 Ms. Maxine Waters of California introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit licenses or other authorization for United States persons 
  to engage in activities relating to deepwater, Arctic offshore, or 
 shale projects that have the potential to produce oil in the Russian 
Federation, or in maritime area claimed by the Russian Federation, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Russia Exemptions for Oil 
Production Act'' or the ``No REX Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LICENSES OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION FOR UNITED 
              STATES PERSONS TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO 
              CERTAIN PROJECTS TO PRODUCE OIL IN THE RUSSIAN 
              FEDERATION.

    (a) In General.--Effective as of the date of the enactment of this 
Act--
            (1) the Secretary of the Treasury, acting directly or 
        through any specifically designated person, agency, or 
        instrumentality, may not provide a license or other 
        authorization pursuant to Directive 4 under Executive Order 
        13662 to engage in any of the activities prohibited under such 
        Directive; and
            (2) any license or other authorization provided before such 
        date of enactment by the Secretary of the Treasury, acting 
        directly or through any specifically designated person, agency, 
        or instrumentality, pursuant to Directive 4 under Executive 
        Order 13662 to engage in any of the activities prohibited under 
        such Directive shall have no force or effect.
    (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Directive 4 under 
Executive Order 13662'' means Directive 4 of September 12, 2014, under 
Executive Order 13662 of March 20, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 16169; relating 
to Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the 
Situation in Ukraine) or any successor Directive or other Executive 
action.
                                 <all>
```