alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
       
<S>                                <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998          SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                          43,673               43,673
<SECURITIES>                    28,954               28,954
<RECEIVABLES>                  166,825              166,825
<ALLOWANCES>                      6,506                6,506
<INVENTORY>                          0                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     0                    0
<PP&E>                               0                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                       0                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 252,594              252,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                0                    0
<BONDS>                        105,056              105,056
<COMMON>                            68                   68
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0                    0
<PREFERRED>                          0                    0
<OTHER-SE>                      79,719               79,719
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   252,594              252,594
<SALES>                              0                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 10,465               28,391
<CGS>                                0                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   360                1,170
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               3,423               10,115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  4,499               10,774
<INCOME-TAX>                     1,732                4,148
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              2,767                6,626
<DISCONTINUED>                       0                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     (77)                 (77)
<CHANGES>                            0                    0
<NET-INCOME>                     2,690                6,549
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .39                 1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .38                 1.02
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

RENE ANTONIO AGUILAR, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50359 

D.C. No. 3:17-cr-01172-LAB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Rene Antonio Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 5 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50359 

Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to 

address his non-frivolous arguments for a lower sentence. We review for plain 

error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108, 1108 & n.3 

(9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the court 

considered Aguilar’s mitigating arguments and was not persuaded that they 

warranted a lower sentence. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 

(9th Cir. 2008). 

Aguilar next contends that the district court erred by failing to explain 

adequately his above-Guidelines sentence. We conclude that the district court’s 

explanation was sufficient to allow for meaningful review. See Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007); United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637

(9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.
Carlton D. HOLLIMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3013

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Tabari FACEN, Defendant-Appellant.

16-2616

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 20, 2017

FOR APPELLANT: ROBIN CHRISTINE SMITH, San Rafael, California.

FOR APPELLEE: MONICA J. RICHARDS, for James P. Kennedy, Jr., Acting United States Attorney for the Western District of New York.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Tabari Facen appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.) sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. We affirm because any delay in giving Facen a copy of his Presen-tence Report (“PSR”) was harmless error.

In 2013, Facen was convicted after a jury trial on various gun and drug counts. The district court then partially overturned the jury verdict by granting a partial motion for acquittal, and it sentenced Facen to 41 months’ imprisonment on the surviving counts of conviction. On appeal, this Court vacated the district court’s ruling of acquittal and remanded the case for resentencing. United States v. Facen, 812 F.3d 280, 290 (2d Cir. 2016). This Court’s decision triggered a mandatory minimum, and Facen was resentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on July 13, 2016.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e) requires that the probation officer “give the presentence report to the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, and an attorney for the government at least 35 days before sentencing.” While Facen’s attorney received the PSR several months before the July 13, 2016 resentencing, Facen himself only received a copy of the PSR 30 days before the sentencing date. Facen challenges his sentence on the basis of that five-day gap between the date he was supposed to receive the PSR and the date he actually received it.

We see no good reason why—when the defendant asked and the rule expressly required—the district court did not adjourn for five days. However, procedural sentencing mistakes such as this one are subject to harmless error review. United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47, 68 (2d Cir. 2009). Facen’s counsel had the PSR several months before sentencing, Facen himself had the PSR 30 days before sentencing, and the 2016 PSR was virtually identical to the one from 2013. It is clear *69that the district court would have sentenced Facen to the same prison term even if he had received the PSR five days earlier, and the error is therefore harmless. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Facen’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LINCARE HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           6,848
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,887
<INVENTORY>                                      5,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,291
<PP&E>                                         338,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                 153,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 882,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           585
<OTHER-SE>                                     521,102
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   882,250
<SALES>                                        327,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               327,118
<CGS>                                           50,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               180,563
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,907
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 89,424
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,071
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,353
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,353
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 27 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 27

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 12, 2021

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Permitting the remains of the late United States Capitol Police Officer 
    William F. Evans to lie in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the remains of the late United States Capitol Police Officer 
William F. Evans shall be permitted to lie in honor in the rotunda of 
the Capitol on April 13, 2021, and the Architect of the Capitol, under 
the direction of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
President pro tempore of the Senate, 

              

 shall take all necessary steps for the accomplishment of that purpose.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 8, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Burton vs. Feild et al.

It is not the practice of this Court to require terms of the defendant in affirming the judgment, where the error complained of has been cured by an amendment of the record of the Circuit Court, and then the transcript perfected by certiorari.

*Error to the Circuit Court of Pulaski county.*

Pión. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.

Fowler & Stillweel, for the plaintiff.

William II. Feild, for the defendants.

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Feild & Dolly brought an action of debt against Patrick P. *229Burton, in tbe Pulaski Circuit Court. The defendant was described by that name both in the declaration and the writ, but the sheriff returned the writ served upon *Phillip*P. Burton. The plaintiffs obtained judgment by default, and the defendant brought error, assigning for cause of reversal the misnomer in the sheriff’s return. The defendants in error, before joinder, by leave of the Court below, caused the sheriff to amend his return, and then, by *certiorari*from this Court, brought up the amended record, by which the error assigned has been cured.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that, in affirming the judgment, under the circumstances, it should be done upon the terms of taxing the defendants in error with the costs, and requiring them to release the recognizance, as in case of affirmance on *remittitur.*

Cases have frequently occurred in this Court where the only error complained of has been cured by an amendment, as in this case, and the practice has been to affirm without terms,

The judgment is affirmed.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50172

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ENRIQUE SERNA-TORRES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-2572-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Serna-Torres appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for

illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends

that the district court erred when it enhanced his sentence pursuant to

§ 1326(b)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) because the Government failed to

establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had a prior felony conviction. The

Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an

extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50172

2

To the extent Serna-Torres argues that his prior felony conviction must

have been pleaded in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, his

argumentis foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998). See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007),

cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). 

To the extent Serna-Torres argues thatthe Governmentfailed to establish

a sufficient evidentiary basis for the sentencing enhancement, he has failed to

show plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). The

presentence report (PSR) provided that Serna-Torres was removed to Mexico on

July 20, 2004, subsequentto his conviction on September 21, 2001, for the felony

offense of illegal reentry. The PSR also provided that the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D)

enhancement was based on this prior felony conviction. At sentencing, SernaTorres agreed with the guideline calculation set forth in the PSR, and the

district court adopted the PSR without change. Therefore, the Government

proved by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Serna-Torres’s prior removal was

subsequent to his felony conviction for illegal reentry, and the district court did

not err when it enhanced his sentence pursuant to § 1326(b)(1) and

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). See United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, the

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

Government’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 72025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29978]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending October 22, 2011

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0193.
    Date Filed: October 21, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: November 14, 2011.

Description

    Application of GoJet Airlines, LLC (``GOJET'') requesting an 
amendment to its certificate authority, to wit a removal of the 
restriction on the total number of aircraft GOJET can operate and/or an 
increase in the number by fifteen (15) aircraft.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-29978 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4619-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4619-DR), dated September 12, 2021, and related determinations.

# DATES:

The amendment was issued December 14, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident for this declared disaster has been changed to wildfires to include the Cache Fire. 

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2022-02264 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS
MAXWEL LGOUL D DRAPER, Appellant,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
. § § § § § § No. 08-09-00207- CR

Appea l from the County Criminal Court No. 3 of De nton County , Texas (TC# 2007-09496-C)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Pending be fore the Court is Appellant’s motion to withdraw his notice of a ppeal pur suant to T E X .R.A P P .P. 42.2(a). Appe llant has persona lly signe d his request, a

nd has filed it prior to the appellate court’s de cision. See T E X .R.A P P .P. 42.2(a). F urther, a duplicate c opy

has bee n filed with this C ourt, and ha s been f orwa rded to the tria l court cle rk. See id . As the motion complies with the require ments of Rule 42.2(a) , we GRAN T Appellant’s motion, and dismiss the appea l.
May 19, 2010 DAVI D WEL L I NGTON CHEW, C hief Just ice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ
. (Do Not Publish)
David JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3952

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1752

SUZANNE BERGER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Lydia Kay Griggsby , District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 00064

- LKG )

Submitted : February 21 , 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ , Circuit Judge s , and MOTZ , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Rignal W. Baldwin, V, BALDWIN SERAINA, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thurman W. Zollicoffer, Jr., Deborah St. Lawrence Thompson, Peter W. Sheehan, Jr. , NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1752 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Suzanne Berger appeals the district court’s order granting Baltimore County , Maryland’s, motion to dismiss Berger’s complaint raising multiple discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e

17 ; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 ; and the Maryland Fair Emplo yment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20

- 606(a)(1)(i). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Berger v. Baltimore Cnty., Md. , No. 1:2 2

- cv - 00 064

- LKG ( D. Md

. June 13 , 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1752 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132460 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132460 

 COA: 261419 

Macomb CC: 04-003901-FC 

DANNY THOMAS MARSILI,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

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

t0122 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

January 29, 2007 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 10.7.1**

 

 

**Employment Arrangements with Tilman J. Falgout, III**

 

America’sCar-Mart, Inc. (the “Company”) does not have a written employment agreement withTilman J. Falgout, III.  Mr. Falgoutreceives an annual salary of $330,000 per year and a quarterly bonus equal to0.5% of the Company’s net income during such period.  In addition, Mr. Falgout is entitled to thefollowing fringe benefits:  use of acompany car, cell phone service, long-term disability insurance, healthinsurance for him and his family and payment of health or country club dues,which dues were approximately $6,000 during fiscal 2005.  Mr. Falgout’s salary, bonus and fringebenefits are subject to adjustment at the discretion of the Company’s board ofdirectors and price increases.

 

----