alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gregory GRIFFIN, AKA Meeshack, *80Defendant-Appellant.*

16-2630

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 12, 2017

FOR APPELLANT: Melissa A. Tuohey, for Lisa A. Peebles, Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of New York.

FOR APPELLEE: Steven D. Clymer, for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, GEORGE B. DANIELS,** District Judge.

*

The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the ' official caption to conform to the caption above.

**

 Judge George B. Daniels, United States Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Gregory Griffin appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, J.) imposing, in relevant part, a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment after his plea to violations of his conditions of supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. We affirm because the district court’s within-Guidelines sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.

Griffin argues that the district court failed to adequately explain the reasons for its sentence. He did not preserve this procedural objection, and so we review it for plain error. United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247, 263 (2d Cir. 2015), as amended (July 22, 2015). Further, when imposing a within-Guidelines sentence for violation of supervised release, a district court’s compliance with the sentencing explanation requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) “can be minimal.” United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2012), as amended (July 25, 2012). While the district court’s explanation was indeed minimal, Griffin failed to show (as he was required to do) that any lack of explanation “prejudicially affected his substantial rights,” United States v. Cook, 722 F.3d 477, 481 (2d Cir. 2013).

As to Griffin’s substantive challenge to his 27-month sentence, the within-Guidelines sentence was not “so shockingly high ... or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law that allowing [it] to stand would damage the administration of justice.” Aldeen, 792 F.3d at 255 (internal quotation marks omitted). It was therefore substantively reasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Griffin’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Carl ZINCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2915

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Douglas W. KEENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3686

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Wayne Elliott WILKERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank PERRY, Secretary of Public Safety, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6781

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 17, 2017

Decided: September 11, 2017

Wayne Elliott Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Elliot Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Wilkerson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because it is possible that Wilkerson could cure the defects in his petition through amendment, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-25 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED*
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1426 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain amounts 

from the tested income of controlled foreign corporations, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2021 

Ms. PLASKETT (for herself and Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

certain amounts from the tested income of controlled 

foreign corporations, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Territorial Economic 

5 Recovery Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1426 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCOME OF CERTAIN QUALIFIED POSSESSION COR2 PORATIONS EXCLUDED FROM TESTED IN3 COME. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 951A of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (c)(2)(A)(i), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

7 at the end of subclause (IV), by striking ‘‘over’’ at 

8 the end of subclause (V) and inserting ‘‘and’’, and 

9 by adding at the end the following new subclause: 

10 ‘‘(VI) any income of a qualified 

11 possession corporation that is effec12 tively connected with the active con13 duct of a trade or business within a 

14 possession of the United States, 

15 over’’; and 

16 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub17 sections: 

18 ‘‘(g) POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES.—For 

19 purposes of this section, the term ‘possession of the United 

20 States’ means Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and any 

21 specified possession described in section 931(c). 

22 ‘‘(h) QUALIFIED POSSESSION CORPORATION.—For 

23 purposes of this section, the term ‘qualified possession cor24 poration’ means any controlled foreign corporation for any 

25 taxable year, if, for the 3-year period (or the period during 

26 which the controlled foreign corporation has been in existVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:27 Apr 06, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1426.IH H1426

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1426 IH

1 ence, if shorter) ending in the taxable year preceding the 

2 taxable year in which the determination is made— 

3 ‘‘(1) 80 percent or more of the gross income of 

4 such corporation was derived from sources within a 

5 possession of the United States, and 

6 ‘‘(2) 75 percent or more of the gross income of 

7 such corporation was effectively connected with the 

8 active conduct of a trade or business within a pos9 session of the United States.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years of foreign corpora12 tions beginning after December 31, 2020, and to taxable 

13 years of United States shareholders in which or with which 

14 such taxable years of foreign corporations end. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Custom er Service Hotline: 1 - 800 - 438 - 2474 UNITED STA

TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A GENCY

REGION III 1650 A rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 - 2029 December 1, 2010 Mr. David K. Paylor , Director Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 629 East Main Stree t Richmond, Virginia 23218 Dear Mr. Pay lor : On September 29 , 20 10 , t he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Virginia State I mplementation Plan (SI P) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Qua lity
. Th is revision consists of a regulation (9VAC5 Chapter 30) that contains the ambient air quality

standards set out in 40 CFR Part 50. The submittal added an 8
- hour ozone standard of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) and related reference conditions, as well as updated the list of appendices to 40 CFR Part 51 for documents incorporated by reference, 9VAC5
- 20
- 21
. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Not ice
. If members of y our staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Ms. Irene Shandruk , Office of Air Program Planning, at 215
- 814
- 2166
. Sh e is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely , /s/ Diana Esher , Director A ir Protection Division
Daniel C. OZELLA, Appellant, v. Katherine L. MEIER, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-286

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00252-CV

Thomas J. Gesswein

v.

Sharon L. Gesswein

On appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-4086-17-6

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 18, 2018
January 16, 2015

Mr. Brian Godsen Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC 4551 Research Parkway Warren, OH 44483

Dear Mr. Godsen:

This is in response to your September 30, 2014, letter sent to the docket (No. FAA-2014- 0788) petitioning the Federal Aviation Admini stration (FAA) on behalf of Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC (Delphi) for an exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23(b); 61.113(a) and (b); 91.7 (a); 91.9 (b) (2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) and (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2); and 91.417 (a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemp tion, if granted, would allow Delphi to commercially operate its fleet of small unmanned vehicles and lightweight unmanned aircraft vehicles in facility assessment operations, to conduct its own research, and to support economic platforms for law enforcement, first responders, and search and rescue.

By email dated December 5, 2014, which posted to the docket December 9, the FAA sent you a request for additional information asking you to:

 Describe the aircraft make and model for the proposed unmanned aerial system (UAS) operation;

 List the aircraft’s cruise speed;

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum;

 Describe the proximity of the proposed operations to airports and populated areas;

and

 Describe the process used to determine if the UAS is airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the national airspace system.2 Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has closed your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information, please resubmit your petition for exemption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director Office of Rulemaking
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 Apria Healthcare Group Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2011 (the Report), I, Chris A. Karkenny, Executive Vice President and 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:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 9, 2011                                   
|                                                    
|/s/ CHRIS A. KARKENNY                               
|Chris A. Karkenny                                   
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                 ADDENDUM NO. 3

                                     TO THE

                    PXRE GROUP AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT
                        CONCERNING FILING OF CONSOLIDATED
                           FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS

                                     BETWEEN

                            PXRE CORPORATION ("PXRE")

                                       AND

               TRANSNATIONAL REINSURANCE COMPANY ("Transnational")



               WHEREAS,  Transnational  is a  wholly-owned  subsidiary  of  PXRE
Reinsurance   Company   ("Reinsurance"),   and  Reinsurance  is  a  wholly-owned
subsidiary of PXRE; and

               WHEREAS,  Transnational  is,  therefore,  a  member  of the  PXRE
affiliated group of corporations filing consolidated  federal income tax returns
(the "PXRE Group") and has, by this Addendum No. 3 dated as of December 11, 1996
become a participant  in the Amended and Restated  Agreement  dated as of August
23, 1993 between PXRE and Reinsurance  establishing  the terms pursuant to which
the PXRE Group files its consolidated federal income tax returns, and

               NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed that Transnational shall be a
participant in the PXRE Group Amended and Restated  Agreement  Concerning Filing
of Consolidated  Federal Income Tax Returns dated as of August 23, 1993 to which
this Addendum is annexed.

                                      PXRE CORPORATION


                                      By: /s/ Gerald L. Radke
                                         --------------------------------
                                      Name:  Gerald L. Radke
                                      Title: Chairman of the Board, President
                                             and Chief Executive Officer


                                      TRANSNATIONAL REINSURANCE COMPANY


                                      By: /s/ Gerald L. Radke
                                         --------------------------------
                                      Name:  Gerald L. Radke
                                      Title: Chairman of the Board, President
                                             and Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
Elaine R. MORRIS, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR CSAB MORTGAGE-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-2, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1589

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 13, 2018 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 23, 2018

Kelley A. Bosecker, St Petersburg, for Appellant.

Kimberly S. Mello, and Danielle M. Diaz, of Greenberg Traurig, PA, Tampa, and Michele L. Stocker, of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., TORPY and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Fogelman Mortgage LP 1
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>

<CIK>               0000800608
<NAME>              Fogelman Mortgage LP 1
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          420,884

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   25,701,746

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0

<PP&E>                          285,565

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  26,408,195

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           336,485

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      26,071,710

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    26,408,195

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,682,766

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   525,757

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    1,157,009

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   16.93

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
# John P. Coffey

##                 General Counsel, Department of the Navy            

John P. (“Sean”) Coffey was sworn into office on February 16, 2022, as the 24th General Counsel of the Department of the Navy after his confirmation by the U.S. Senate on February 9, 2022.  As General Counsel, Mr. Coffey is the Department of the Navy’s (DON) Chief Legal Officer and head of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). He leads more than 1,100 attorneys and professional support staff in 140 offices worldwide. DON OGC provides legal advice to the Secretary of the Navy, the Under Secretary of the Navy, the Assistant Secretaries of the Navy and their staffs, and the multiple components of the Department, to include the Navy and the Marine Corps.

He is a native of New York. Mr. Coffey is the oldest of seven children born to Irish immigrants.  He is an honors graduate of the United States Naval Academy and Georgetown University Law Center.  After graduating from Annapolis, Mr. Coffey completed Naval Flight Officer training and served eight years on active duty, including assignments as a P-3C Orion mission commander hunting Soviet submarines during the Cold War, a junior officer intern to the Strategy Division in the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the special military assistant (personal aide) to Vice President George H.W. Bush.  Mr. Coffey attended Georgetown Law’s evening program while assigned to the Pentagon and White House.  After graduating from Georgetown, Mr. Coffey transitioned to the Navy Reserve and returned to New York, where he practiced law for over thirty-five years, including several years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York and most recently as Chair of Complex Litigation at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

After returning home to New York, Mr. Coffey continued to serve in the Navy Reserve for eighteen years.  Among other things, he flew anti-submarine missions in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, counter-narcotics missions in the Caribbean, and armed missions in support of the blockade of the former Yugoslavia.  Mr. Coffey was selected to serve as commanding officer both of a reserve P-3C squadron (VP-92) and the reserve component of the *Enterprise* carrier battle group staff (CCDG-12), and served as a staff officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs).  Mr. Coffey retired at the rank of captain in 2004.
Exhibit 10.5

 

Letter of Spouse Consent

 

I,             (ID No.:                                    ), is the legal spouse of               (ID No.:                                ). I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree that                enters into the following documents (“Transaction Documents”) on June 7, 2018, and that the equity held by and registered under the name of              in Ningxia Xiangshang Rongke Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Domestic Company”) will be disposed of according to the following documents:

 

(1)                                 The Equity Pledge Contract entered into by               , Ningxia Xiangshang Yixin Technology Co., Ltd. (“WFOE”), the Domestic Company and other parties;

 

(2)                                 The Exclusive Option Contract entered into by              , the WFOE, the Domestic Company and other parties; and

 

(3)                                 The Power of Attorney entered into by              , the WFOE, and other parties.

 

I hereby acknowledge that I have no interest in the equity of the Domestic Company and undertake not to make any claim over the equity, operation and management of the Domestic Company. I further acknowledge that it will not require my authorization or consent for              to perform the Transaction Documents and to amend or terminate the Transaction Documents.

 

I undertake to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary actions to ensure the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time) are properly performed.

 

I agree and undertake that if I acquire any equity in the Domestic Company for any reason, I will be bound by the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time) and comply with the obligations of a shareholder of the Domestic Company under the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time). For that purpose, upon the request of the WFOE, I will execute a series of written documents substantially in the form and content of the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time).

 

 

	
 
    	
Spouse:  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Date:
Glenn Wade HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3004

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jaquavious Akeem WEATHERS v. STATE

CR-15-1265

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1

    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
              SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

    In connection with the Annual Report of SED International Holdings, Inc
(the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark Diamond, Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge:

        (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

        (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company, and for, the periods presented in this Report.

                                                      /s/ MARK DIAMOND
                                             ----------------------------------
                                                          Mark Diamond
                                             President & Chief Executive Officer
                                                 (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: February 12, 2004

    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
document.

                                      27
David SIMS, a/k/a David S. Sims, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3389

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.