alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 10303 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Michael Steven Smith,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22

- CR

- 347

- 1

**________________ ______________**  Before **Jolly, Higginson,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Michael Steven Smith appeals his conviction and 120

- month sentence for stealing firearms from a licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(u) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(i)(1). First, he challenges the district court’s finding, in support of a sente ncing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(A) , that he possessed or transferred a firearm with reason to

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 11, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10303 Document: 73-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2024No. 23

- 10303

2 believe it would be transported out of the United States . We review the factual finding for clear error. See United States v. Juarez , 626 F.3d 24 6, 25 5 (5th Cir. 2010)

. According to Smith, the only evidence supporting the enhancement

was his statement to investigators that approximately 20 of the 27 stolen firearms were “ in Mexico , for sure

. ” He argues that the comment

— which he deems offhand, hyperbolic, conclusory, and speculative

— was insufficient to support the significant guidelines enhancement. He further argues that the statement was unreliable because of his mental and physical state d uring the interview

. Smith also asserts that evidence that he sold stolen firearms
to a drug dealer who was trafficking kilogram quantities of narcotics and to a Hispanic man he suspected was involved with a drug cartel did not support the finding

. Smit h’s effort to downplay the significance of his own statement is unavailing because he explained to investigators the reasons why he believed the guns would be transported to Mexico . T he district court was entitled to draw the same common

- sense inference f rom the facts that Smith did

— that there was reason to believe the firearms would be transferred out of the United States. See id. at 2 55

- 5 6. T he district court’s finding was plausible in light of the record as a whole and was not clearly erroneous. See id. In addition, Smith asserts that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by criminalizing the theft of firearms that have previously travelled in interstate commerce. However, he correctly concedes that the argument is unavailing

. Se e United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143 , 145

- 46 (5th Cir. 2013).
**AFFIRMED.** Case: 23-10303 Document: 73-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2024
REF ID:A67361 

Mr. William F. Friedman S/A 

BSA T.m~ICAL .JOURIIAL EDtt'OBIAL POLICY BOARD 

4 April 1955 

PRCll: NJ . ' . . 

SUB.JEC!: Agemta- for the 1ifth Meetlq of the lmtori.&l Pol1q Board, . 20 Apr 1955 

1 .. ·-~\'he aeXt meeting ol the BIUtm1.al. Poliq BoUd rill be. hel4 Wedue~, 

20 Apr 1955, at OCJOO ill tile DI.rector'• sta:tt COD.ference Roca, 19-244. 

. 2. \'he purpose at· th1• llleet1Dg Vill 'be to cOA81cler the au applicat:lcma 

tor the Job of editor of the Journal. . · 

3. Appllcat1ou and 201 ftlea of all applieanta vUl. be made aY&ilable 

to each meber ot the Eoard. prior to the meeting. 

@'pp roved for Release b\( ~SA on 05-_29-2014 pursuant to E .0. 1352a _____________________ _
Exhibit24.8

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appointseach of Robert K. Kretzman and Michael T. Sheehan or either of them,each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, withfull power of substitution, for him and his name, place and stead, inany and all capacities, in connection with the REVLON, INC. (the"Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form10-K") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation oron behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of theCorporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument,contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibitsthereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including thispower of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and anyapplicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body,granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thingrequisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fullyto all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents,each acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do orcause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has signed these presents this 18th day ofFebruary, 2004.

/s/ TERRY SEMEL

|  |
|--|
|  |  |  |
|  |

|  | TERRYSEMEL |
|--|------------|

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2


                                   XTRA INC.
           STATEMENT OF THE CALCULATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                 FOR THE THREE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
                             (Millions of dollars)


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                     1998         1997        1996
                                                                   ---------    -------     --------     
<S>                                                                <C>          <C>         <C> 
EARNINGS                                                           
Income from operations before provision for income taxes           $    99      $   71      $    69
  Add:  Fixed charges (below)                                           58          63           66
                                                                   --------     -------     --------
                                                                   $   157      $  134      $   135
                                                                   ========     =======     ========
                                                                                              
                                                                                              
FIXED CHARGES                                                      $    58      $   63      $    66
                                                                   ========     =======     ========
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                     2.7         2.1          2.0
                                                                   ========     =======     ========
</TABLE> 

Note:    For purposes of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges,
         earnings represent income from operations before taxes plus fixed
         charges. Fixed charges for operations consist of interest on
         indebtedness and the portion of rental expense which represents
         interest.

                                      28
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Richard KEMNER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 78-1697

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 25, 1978.

*1166Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Karen K. Brown, Gustavo L. Acevedo, Asst. Federal Public Defenders, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

J. A. Canales, U. S. Atty., John M. Potter, George A. Kelt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., Robert A. Berg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Corpus Christi, Tex., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409. Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, sentenced on October 28,1977, filed his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence on March 7, 1978 — 130 days after sentence was imposed. That rule permits a sentencing judge to reconsider a sentence “within 120 days after the sentence is imposed . . .” Whatever latitude may exist for consideration by the judge after this period of motions filed within it, the judge is without jurisdiction to consider motions not filed within it. *United States v. Flores,*507 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1975).

Appellant’s motion was for this reason correctly denied.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Supreme Industries, Inc.(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 1,2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) of 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| DATE: May 16,  2006 |                     |   | /s/ Herbert M.  Gardner |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                     | Herbert M.  Gardner      |
|                     | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit tothe Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not beingfiled as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
REF ID:A66022 

lfr. Joseph Desch 

lfational Cash Jlegister COlnpa.l:\Y' 

Dqt.on,, (Jdo 

Dear Jrz-. Desch: 

DS.A.-OOT/et 

Serial: 957 

18 JUN 1901 

In connection with the forthcoming 2d SC.AG Conference, which 

opens ori 10 Jul.J' l9Sl and wb1ch I am hoping 1011 'Will attem.., we 

'lliah to include a brief presentation on the World War ll Btnbes 

llhich. ICR built for Waq. Since there is now at AFSA no one b-all 

World War n dqa who is aa well quelltied as J'O'.l are to present. 

.m discusa the matter of the eng:imer!ng design am the various 

pl"Ohlema in the construction aM functioning of that particular 

piece of equipaent, I am writing to uk it 7011 would be ldD1 

cough to make the presentation arri lead the discussion ot that 

1.tm ot the agenda. I .ehould thil'lk that JO .minutes could be 

Alevoted to this item 1n our regular eession although in private discussions wit;h otl,te..T SC/ill ~m~~~ ,ou co~d. ot course, elaborate to the Q.tent I!llltualJ.T desired. 

-- '• -_1l'ease let me know it ,au c-an aeccpl. tlile aaBlgiinent. l!JO \.hat. 

D win eohedu1.e ;rou according~. - - -

- - .. ~ -

l 

l 

I 

I 

4 • 

-. 

.. 

__ JoJXLr>i to receive an affirmative repq and l.ooldJ:>g forward 

t.o see!11g JOU,, ? am, - •r 

- - . ·-

...,.._ 

' PLEASE RETURll TO AFSA-OOJ' 

-8incerel,J' 7oora~ 

EARL E. srou 

Di Rear Admiral, u.s. NaV? . ~eotor, .Armed Foroes Security Aaenor 

William F. Friedman/ef/27 Jun 51 

AFSA-OOT, Ext 60240 

@'pp roved for Release bv NSA on 04-15-2014 pursuant to E .0. 1352\3 

-

~ 

--~ 

• . I
99-191.

#### State v. Johnson.

Hamilton App. No. C-980266. Reported at 85 Ohio St.3d 1464, 709 N.E.2d 170. On motion for reconsideration and motion to strike. Motions denied.
99-1298.

#### Hill v. Anderson.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus by John Hill, Jr. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
e. 

USCIB: 29.17/4 

12 April 1954 

'i'OP "Eeft!I 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PL 86-36/50 use 3605 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: CCMINT Relations with Third Partiesl..._~~------' 

1. The following tentative record of decision reached.by" USCIB 

at its 102nd Meeting on Friday, 9 April 1954 with relation to item 1 

of the agenda of tha.t meeting is circulated herewith in advance of the 

minutes for the convenience of the members: 

11USCIB agreed that: 

a- A JJ.S,-JJ.K: conference should be held in London, in July, 

to discuss[ _ I 

b. EI.INT should not be included on the agenda for such conference at this time. 

c. A working committee should be convened under the cognizance of the Director, National Security Agency to prepare recommendations to USCIB for an agenda and a delegation for the above mentioned 

conference. 

d. The working group mentioned in subparagraph c. above 

should have the reconunendations ready for consideration at the Special 

Meeting now scheduled for Friday, 23 April 1954. 

e. The members should notify the Executive Secretary of the 

names of persons to participate in the above mentioned working group. 

f. The Executive Secretary should take action to have 

forwarded to the Chairman, LSIB the draft memorandum included as enclosure 3 to NSA serial 000156 ~ of 4 April 1954 which was circulated as 

the enclosure to USCIB 29 .17 /3. 11 

USCIB: 29.17/4 

ptain, U. • Navy 

ecutive Secretary, USCIB 

24 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-02-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352e 

POP S:ECR:E'P
Exhibit24.7

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appointseach of Robert K. Kretzman and Michael T. Sheehan or either of them,each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, withfull power of substitution, for him and his name, place and stead, inany and all capacities, in connection with the REVLON, INC. (the"Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form10-K") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation oron behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of theCorporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument,contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibitsthereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including thispower of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and anyapplicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body,granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thingrequisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fullyto all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents,each acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do orcause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has signed these presents this 8th day of March, 2005.

|  | /s/ EDWARD J.LANDAU |
|--|---------------------|

|  |
|--|
|  |  |  |
|  |

|  | EDWARDJ. LANDAU |
|--|-----------------|

----
# CE2004078EN.01094201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/942 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/942

---

(2004/C 78 E/0996)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0208/04

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Subject:   Practical problems with town-twinning scheme

Subject:

In keeping with the spirit of the Commission's White Paper on Governance, the town-twinning scheme forms part of the EU's endeavours to enhance European awareness through dialogue with its citizens with a view to their active participation in developments in Europe.

However, at a time when there is increasing emphasis on the importance of this process, particularly at this historic moment ahead of enlargement of the Union when there is a need to heighten the public's awareness of the significance of a European identity, the town-twinning scheme is running into problems. In breach of the procedure for the payment of subsidies in this connection, the programmes which were approved and carried out in March 2003 remain unsubsidised without any official notification or justification on the part of the responsible Commission department. Not only does this state of affairs negate the very objectives of the scheme, it also puts the local authorities in a very difficult position as they have borne the financial brunt of organising the scheme and are, obviously, accountable to their citizens.

Will the Commission state the reasons for the delays in paying the subsidies? What will it do henceforth to ensure that the twinning scheme operates as it should?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

(17 February 2004)

The Commission attaches great importance to the town-twinning scheme and to the need for funding to be organised in a manner which is acceptable to beneficiaries.

With this in mind, the grant award system has been made as simple as possible. Calculations are based on flat rates, new simplified forms have been designed, and a user's guide has been produced for beneficiaries.

However, several factors influence the implementation of the scheme's funding arrangements.

For example, the new Financial Regulation has significant repercussions in terms of the award and payment procedures.

The Commission strictly adheres to the payment procedures contained in the call for proposals and the new Financial Regulation. The disbursement of grants is therefore dependent on the submission of documentary evidence by the beneficiary at the end of the activity. Although the volume of documentary evidence has been reduced, in nearly 25 % of cases beneficiaries have had to be contacted again because the documentation they submitted was incomplete. This is the reason for most of the payment delays.

Nevertheless, on the whole, the situation has improved considerably.

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that everything is being done to catch up on the backlog and pay the sums due as soon as possible.

---
EXHIBIT 11.1

                       BAIRNCO CORPORATION
       CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
    FOR THE QUARTERS ENDED OCTOBER 3, 1998 AND SEPTEMBER 27,
                              1997
                           (Unaudited)


                                            1998         1997
BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:

Net income                                  $ 1,173,000  $ 2,165,000

Average common shares outstanding             8,567,000    9,014,000

Basic Earnings Per Common Share             $      0.14  $      0.24


DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:

Net income                                  $ 1,173,000  $ 2,165,000

Average common shares outstanding             8,567,000    9,014,000
Common shares issuable in respect to 
  options issued to employees with a 
  dilutive effect                                42,000      240,000
Total diluted common shares outstanding       8,609,000    9,254,000

Diluted Earnings Per Common Share           $      0.14  $      0.23


Basic  earnings per common share were computed by dividing
net income by the weighted average number of common shares
outstanding  during  the quarter.   Diluted  earnings  per
common  share  include the effect of  all  dilutive  stock
options.
EXHIBIT 11.1

COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE



|                        |  |                     |  |   |            |   |                                 |           |               |           
|----------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | - | ---------- | - | ------------------------------- | --------- | ------------- | ----------
|BEGINNING BALANCE       |  |                     |  |   |            |   |                                 |           |               | 30,432,433
|                        |  |                     |  |  
|DATE                    |  | NO. OF SHARESISSUED |  |   |            |   | CONTRIBUTION TOWEIGHTED AVERAGE |           | ENDINGBALANCE
|January 16, 2007        |  | 1,925,000           |  |   |            |   |                                 | 1,840,618 |               | 32,273,051
|February 5, 2007        |  | 600,000             |  |   |            |   |                                 | 540,821   |               | 32,813,872
|February 21, 2007       |  | 275,000             |  |   |            |   |                                 | 235,822   |               | 33,049,694
|March 22, 2007          |  | 365,000             |  |   |            |   |                                 | 284,000   |               | 33,333,694
|June 18, 2007           |  | 1,304,286           |  |   |            |   |                                 | 700,384   |               | 34,034,078
|July 9, 2007            |  | 53,616              |  |   |            |   |                                 | 25,706    |               | 34,059,784
|July 12, 2007           |  | 120,000             |  |   |            |   |                                 | 56,548    |               | 34,116,332
|August 8, 2007          |  | 1,625,000           |  |   |            |   |                                 | 645,548   |               | 34,761,880
|September 20, 2007      |  | 17,000              |  |   |            |   |                                 | 4,751     |               | 34,766,631
|October 29, 2007        |  | 8,000,000           |  |   |            |   |                                 | 345,206   |               | 35,111,837
|November 8, 2007        |  | 30,000              |  |   |            |   |                                 | 4,356     |               | 35,116,193
|December 18, 2007       |  | 750,000             |  |   |            |   |                                 |          |               | 35,116,193
|                        |  |                     |  |  
|Net Loss for the year   |  |                     |  | $ | 4,763,046  |   |                                 |           |               |           
|Weighted average shares |  |                     |  |   | 35,116,193 |   |                                 |           |               |           
|Net Loss per share      |  |                     |  | $ | (0.14      | ) |                                 |           |               |