alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley Paul HADSELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4767

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

Jason A. Dunn, JASON A. DUNN, PLC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Andrew Bosse, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Wesley Paul Hadsell pled guilty to possession of ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). Prior to sentencing, Hadsell objected to the probation officer’s recommendation that he be sentenced as an armed career criminal based, in part, on his prior Virginia conviction for statutory burglary. The district court acknowledged that Virginia statutory burglary is broader on its face than generic burglary as defined by the Supreme Court in *Taylor v. United States,*495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). However, the district court determined that the statute at issue was divisible and applied the modified categorical approach to conclude that the elements of generic burglary were proven in Hadsell’s case. Accordingly, the district court found that Hadsell’s Virginia conviction for statutory burglary constituted a “violent felony” and was a proper predicate conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012). The district court sentenced Hadsell to serve a term of 240 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Hadsell challenges only the district court’s determination that his Virginia conviction qualifies as an enumerated “violent felony” under the ACCA. Hadsell preserved this issue in the district court and, therefore, “we review de novo the question whether his prior state conviction[ ] qualified as [a] predicate felony conviction ] for purposes of a federal sentence enhancement.” *United States v. Gardner,*823 F.3d 793, 801 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We recently decided, subsequent to the district court’s ruling, first, that the Virginia burglary statute at issue here is indivisible and, therefore, not subject to application of the modified categorical approach, and second, that under the categorical approach, the statute is broader than the generic offense of burglary. *See Castendet-Lewis v. Sessions,*855 F.3d 253, 261-64 (4th Cir. 2017). In light of that decision, we conclude that Hadsell’s prior Virginia statutory burglary conviction does not qualify as the ACCA-enu-merated offense of “burglary.” Accordingly, we vacate Hadsell’s sentence and remand the matter to the district court for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal *162contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADM IN I STRATI ON, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

GRETCHEN HUNT, 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. [Unassigned] 

Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0295 

FAA Case No. 2010SO700070 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

Comes now the Complainant, pursuant to Section 13.215 of the Rules of Practice (14 

C.F.R. § 13.215) in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, and in view of a settlement reached by the 

parties, hereby withdraws the Complaint in the above-referenced matter. There will, 

therefore, be no issues for litigation for the as yet unscheduled hearing in this matter. 

Complainant requests that the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the proceedings in this 

matter. 

Respectfully submitted this ZJ day of June, 2011. 

GERALD A. ELLIS 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel RECEIVED 

JUN \' ' 2011 

HEARING DOCKET 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Complainant's Withdrawal of Complaint 

has been mailed this date by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin (original) 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

GretchenHunt (1 copy) 

8112 Taylor Court 

West Windsor, NJ 08550 

Hearing Docket Clerk (1 copy) 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

[. MCDOWELL 

assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

JW 0 3 2011 

Dated
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr. the Chief Executive Officer of Aros
Corporation (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with
the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 (the
Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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:November 14, 2002 |  | /s/ Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.     
|                       |  | Name: Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.   
|                       |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### IN RE: Giuseppe PILEGGI, Petitioner.

No. 17-1676

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 7, 2017

Decided: September 14, 2017

Giuseppe Pileggi, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Giuseppe Pileggi petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in acting on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s *204docket reveals that the district court denied Pileggi’s Rule 41(g) motion without prejudice by order entered July 26, 2017, and dismissed his § 2266 motion by order entered September 1, 2017. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Pileggi’s motions, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
Shawn SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KP-0604

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of *Brady v. Maryland* , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). As to his remaining claims, relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state *1220court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Elias Lou ABUSAID, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Melodi F. MCLAIN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4049

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of Ariba, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert M. Calderoni, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ahmed Rubaie, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:



|(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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    ROBERT M.
CALDERONIRobert M. CalderoniChief Executive Officer


Date: November 19, 2008



/s/    AHMED RUBAIEAhmed RubaieExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 19, 2008
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     I, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 11, 2005         By:                        /s/ GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.    Name:  Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.    Title:  *President and Chief Executive*
Kevin Lonell SQUAIR, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-874

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 6, 2018

Michael A. Graves, Public Defender, Brooksville, and Eric R. Tippin, Assistant Public Defender, Brooksville, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the June 21, 2017 judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 15-CF-001809, in the Circuit Court in and for Hernando County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
John A. MARICEVICH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1470

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Joan FIORE, Appellant, v. CITY OF NAPLES and 465 Building, LLC, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-1305

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Penny HITCHCOCK, Appellant, v. Patricia MAHAFFEY, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-533

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 2, 2018

Michael C. Clarke and Betsy E. Gallagher, of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Nicholas A. Shannin, B.C.S., Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, and Margaret E. Kozan, of Margaret E. Kozan, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Penny Hitchcock appeals the final judgment entered in favor of Patricia Mahaffey following a jury verdict. Mahaffey was seriously injured when she was struck by a motor vehicle that was being negligently operated by Hitchcock. The jury awarded Mahaffey significant sums of money for certain intangible damages and for "medical expenses, household goods or services, or other economic losses,"1 both in the past and in the future. We affirm, without further discussion, on all but one of the several issues that Hitchcock raised. We do, however, agree with Hitchcock that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a new trial or remittitur regarding the award of $250,000 for future economic damages and reverse on this issue.

"Florida law restricts recovery of future medical expenses to those expenses 'reasonably certain' to be incurred." *Auto Club Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Babin* , 204 So.3d 561, 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting *Volusia Cty. v. Joynt* , 179 So.3d 448, 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ). As plaintiff, Mahaffey had the burden at trial "to establish, through competent, substantial evidence, that [her] future medical expenses will more probably than not be incurred." *Id.* (quoting *Joynt* , 179 So.3d at 452 ). Here, other than the sum of $5365 for future surgery, which Hitchcock does not contest, the award for the balance of the future economic damages is based on Mahaffey's testimony as to the amount that she has paid for her past medical expenses and for past household goods and services subsequent to the motor vehicle accident. However, "the amount of past medical expenses incurred does not-at least by itself-provide a reasonable basis for a jury to compute future medical expenses." *Id.* (quoting *Joynt* , 179 So.3d at 452 ).

Accordingly, based upon the lack of competent substantial evidence, we reverse the jury award and that part of the final judgment for damages for the future loss of "medical expenses, household goods or services or other economic losses." We remand for the trial court to either enter a remittitur under *461section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2013), in the amount of $5365 or, if the parties cannot agree to the remittitur, to grant a new trial solely on the issue of the loss of these future economic damages. *See**Truelove v. Blount* , 954 So.2d 1284, 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). As to all other matters, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

The parties agreed to use this specific language to describe this element of damages on the verdict form.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 60970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24745]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED 

Decisional Matters

1. Infant Swings
2. Consideration of Opportunities to Reduce Third Party Testing Costs 
Consistent With Assuring the Compliance of Children's Products

    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: October 3, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24745 Filed 10-3-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Pacific Continental Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Hal M. Brown, Chief Executive Officer, and Michael A. Reynolds, Chief Financial
Officer, 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.


/s/ Hal M. Brown                                /s/ Michael A. Reynolds
----------------                                -----------------------
Hal M. Brown                                    Michael A. Reynolds
Chief Executive Officer                         Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit C

Flight Operations Checklist

Site Checklist

Check for NOTAMS, TFR’s and Airports in Area of Operation

Check Area for Obstacles

Determine RTH Height Based on Obstacles

Determine Height and Distance Maximum Levels for Operation

Setup/Preflight Checklist

Turn on Remote Controller and Confirm Charge Level

Turn on Aircraft Battery and Confirm Charge Level

Confirm SD Card is in Camera

Insert Gimbal/Camera and Lock

Turn on Tablet and Confirm Charge Level

Open DJI Pilot App

Confirm Firmware is Updated

Calibrate Compass

Check IMU Calibration

Install Props and Tighten

Install Prop Locks

Set RTH Height

Set Height and Distance Maximum Levels for Operation

Set Camera/Video Modes

Confirm SD Card Capacity

Verify Flight Mode

Takeoff Checklist

Setup Aircraft into the Wind

Hover at No More Than 10’ Confirm All Controls are Operating Normally

Turn on Video if Necessary

Landing/Postflight Checklist

Land when Battery Level Reaches 25%

Turn off Video if Necessary

Landing Gear Down

Landing Pad Clear

Land into Wind

Turn off Aircraft Battery

Turn off Remote Controller
Exhibit  99.1

                    CUSTOM BRANDED NETWORKS, INC.
                     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  Annual  Report  of Custom Branded Networks, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul  G.  Carter, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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  of1934;  and
(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Paul G. Carter
---------------------------------------
Paul  G.  Carter
Principal  Executive  Officer
Principal  Financial  Officer
September  29,  2003

     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to  Custom Branded Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Custom
Branded  Networks,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or  its  staff  upon  request.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Glacier Water Services, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian H. McInerney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 of the Company as of the dates indicated and results of operations of
the Company for the periods indicated.

|/s/ BRIAN H. MCINERNEY                                               | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                     | 
|Brian H. McInerney President and Chief Executive Officer May 3, 2003 |