alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marc Allen COSSETTE Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-1829

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 6, 2017

Filed: April 24, 2017

Brett M. Shasky, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of *554North Dakota, Fargo, .ND, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marc Allen Cossette, Pro Se

Before BENTON, BEAM, and. MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Marc Cossette pled guilty to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court1 determined that his offense level under the sentencing guidelines was 36 and sentenced him to 324 months imprisonment, a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range. Amendment 782 to the guidelines later reduced the applicable offense level to 34, which with his criminal history category VI led to a revised guideline sentencing range of 262 to 327 months imprisonment. See U.S.S.G., app. C., amend. 782. Cossette then moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied his motion because it found he was a danger to the community and had broken a number of rules while in prison. Cossette appeals.

We review a sentence reduction decision under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir. 2010). In considering a motion for a sentence reduction, a district court first determines the guideline range that would have applied if the amended guideline had been effective at the time of the initial sentence. Id. at 963. It then considers the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to decide if a reduction is appropriate including any potential danger to others. Id. at 963-64. The defendant’s post sentencing conduct may also be considered. Id. at 964. Although a resentenc-ing proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) is not considered “a full resentencing,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3), the court must provide a sufficient explanation to allow meaningful review on appeal, Burrell, 622 F.3d at 964.

In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion when denying Cos-sette’s motion for a sentence reduction after it calculated the extent of a potential reduction and in light of Cossette’s violent criminal history and the danger he posed to the community. As the district court noted, he had violated rules even while in prison by twice possessing drugs or alcohol, twice assaulting another person, fighting, and being in an unauthorized location. Cossette argues that the considerations that initially led the court to sentence him at the bottom of the guideline range should have led it to reduce his sentence to the bottom of the amended range. The record makes clear, however, that the court considered the appropriate sentencing factors, adequately explained its reasoning, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested relief.

For these reasons we affirm the order of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
Ira Demetrius MCPHERSON, Petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D18-2192

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 21, 2018

Ira Demetrius McPherson, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

Rowe, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Dennis E. ALEXANDER

CR-16-0605

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
### Submitting Written Comments on the Proposed Updates to EPA’s Air Emissions **Requirements for New Residential Wood Heaters** Thank you for your interest in the Proposed Updates to EPA’s Air Emissions Requirements for New Residential Wood Heaters. Please follow the instructions below for submitting written comments. The comment deadline is May 5, 2014. Please identify all comments with Docket ID No. EPA- HQ- OAR - 2 009 -0734. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:  **www.regulations.gov :**  Follow the on - line instructions for submitting comments.  **E -**  **mail:** Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e - mail) to a - and - r- docket@epa.gov .  **Fax:** Fax your comments to: (202) 566 - 9744.  **Mail:** Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.  **Hand Delivery or Courier:** Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and spe cial arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. To make special arrangements or for questions, call (202) 566 - 1742.
MARKET TAMPA INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Legal Title Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5063

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15



July 16, 1997

Catalina Marketing Corporation
11300 9th Street North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716





Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We are aware that Catalina Marketing Corporation has incorporated, by reference
in its Registration Statement File Nos. 33-46793, 33-77100, 33-82456,
333-07525 and 333-13335, its Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended June
30, 1997, which includes our report dated July 16, 1997, covering the unaudited
interim financial information contained therein.  Pursuant to Regulation C of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not considered a part of
the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report
prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of
the Act.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



By   
   William J. Meurer

DMS
George Robert LIGHTKEP, Jr. Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1485

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
SERVED : JANUAR Y 3 , 201 1 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N ; f OPERATION

S OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C • ! ! f • M - U A ^ : 3 b IN TH EMATTE RO F NEB O AVIATIO N SERVICES , LL C FA A DOCKE T NO . CPIOEAOO1 2 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) FDM S NO . FAA-2010-107 8 ORDE RO FCHIE FADMINISTRATIV ELA WJUDG E ESTABLISHIN GPROCEDURA LSCHEDUL E O n Decembe r

17 , 2010 , Respondent' s Counse l filed aJoin t Propose dProcedura l Schedule . Respondent' s Counse l state s tha t Complainant' s Counse l "ha s consented " t o submissio n o f th e propose dschedul e "o n behal f o f bot hparties. " Accordingly ,

. I T I S ORDERE D THAT — 1 . Th e propose ddate s containe di n Respondent' s Cas e Managemen t Schedul e ar e adopte dfor

thes e proceedings ; an d 2 . An y hearin g wil l b e hel di n Fort Myers , Florida , at

atim e an dplac e t o b e se t b y a late r order . S O ORDERED .

R6rmi e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e Law Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CP10EA001 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC^3 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Gregory S . Winton , Respondent' s Counse l Th e Aviatio n Law Firm On e Researc hCourt , Suit e 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 TEL : 301-294-855 0 FAX : 301-294-252 5 Stephe n W . Brice , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , Eastern Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : 718-553-326 8 FAX : 716-995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Ronnie A . Yoder , Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-214 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s by U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r by expeditedcourier , us e th e followin g address : Fed

era l Aviatio n Administration , 60

0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washing

ton , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
Gilbert T. CARINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1229

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]   memorandum

CONFIDENTIAL

To:               Terry Lee

CC:               Phil Matthews
                  Linda Bounds

From:             Howard Kosick

Subject:          Howard A. Kosick Employment Agreement

Date:             December 10, 1997

================================================================================

I have enjoyed  serving in the role of the U.S. Group  President  since the U.S.
reorganization  program  announced  on  April  1,  1997.  This is  notice  of my
employment termination date of January 31, 1998.

Per my previous  memo of  September  25, 1997, I am  terminating  my  employment
pursuant to Section  4(e)(i) of my  Employment  Agreement  for "Good Reason" (as
defined in Section  4(e)(ii)(E) of my Employment  Agreement) and, as a result of
such termination,  I will be entitled to certain payments and benefits specified
by that Section, except as expressly provided in the following paragraph of this
Memorandum.  Upon the termination of my employment  pursuant to Section 4(e)(i),
consistent with past practice for severed employees, my stock options will fully
vest and remain  exercisable  through the severance  period (the two-year period
commencing on my  termination  of  employment)  and for 90 days  thereafter.  In
addition,  my unvested restricted stock grants and phantom stock units as of the
date of my  termination  of employment  would become fully  vested.  (This would
apply to options to purchase 2,361 shares and to 5,441 phantom stock units.)

I  acknowledge  that the  Company has paid me a bonus of $100,000 on December 5,
1997.  This bonus  payment is in lieu of any further  bonus  payments  which may
become due pursuant to my Employment  Agreement  (including  the bonus  payments
specified by Sections  4(d)(i) and 4(d)(ii)  thereof) or my Severance  Agreement
dated January 3, 1995 upon the event of my termination of employment.
<PAGE>
Memorandum to Terry Lee
December 10, 1997
Page Two


I have thoroughly  enjoyed my eight years with Bell and wish you and the Company
the best of luck in the future.  Please  acknowledge  receipt and  acceptance of
this notice of  termination  of employment by executing  this  Memorandum in the
space provided below and return a copy thereof to me.


                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Howard A. Kosick

Acknowledged and agreed:

BELL SPORTS CORP.
BELL SPORTS, INC.


---------------------------
By:  Terry G. Lee
* 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. 01-40705 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SANTOS GALVAN-YBARRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-01-CR-130-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender representing Santos GalvanYbarra (Galvan) has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Galvan has filed a response asserting that his

sentence was too harsh and requesting to proceed pro se. The

motion to proceed pro se is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner,

158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). Our independent review of

the brief, Galvan’s response, and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to
No. 01-40705

-2-

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R.

42.2.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-88721, 333-37076, 333-52172, 333-59034, 333-81682, 333-101821,333-108478 and 333-118889 on Form S-8 of our reports dated September 12, 2005, relating to the financial statements (which include explanatory paragraphs related to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142,*Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets* and the retroactive adjustment of NetIQ Corporation’s consolidated financial statements to account for the sale of the WebTrends web analytics business as discontinued operations for all periodspresented in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, *Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long Lived Assets*) and financial statement schedule of NetIQ Corporation and subsidiaries (the“Company”), and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2005. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

September 12, 2005
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6186 

To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to direct the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to conduct research and development on frost or cold 

weather insurance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Mr. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida (for himself, Mr. SOTO, Mr. MILLS, and Mr. 

STEUBE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to direct the 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to conduct research 

and development on frost or cold weather insurance, 

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 ‘‘Temperature Endorse5 ment for Multi-Peril Policies Act’’ or the ‘‘TEMP Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6186 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON FROST OR COLD 

2 WEATHER INSURANCE. 

3 Section 522(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 

4 U.S.C. 1522(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(20) FROST OR COLD WEATHER INSUR7 ANCE.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Corporation shall 

9 carry out research and development, or offer to 

10 enter into 1 or more contracts with 1 or more 

11 qualified persons to carry out research and de12 velopment, regarding an index-based policy to 

13 insure crops (including tomatoes, peppers, sug14 arcane, strawberries, melons, citrus, peaches, 

15 blueberries, and any other crop) on a nation16 ally-available basis against losses due to a frost 

17 or cold weather event. 

18 ‘‘(B) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.— 

19 Research and development under subparagraph 

20 (A) shall— 

21 ‘‘(i) evaluate the effectiveness of risk 

22 management tools, such as the use of an 

23 index, with respect to low frequency and 

24 catastrophic loss weather events; and 

25 ‘‘(ii) result in a policy that provides 

26 protection for at least 1 of the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6186 IH

1 ‘‘(I) Production loss. 

2 ‘‘(II) Revenue loss. 

3 ‘‘(C) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year 

4 after the date of enactment of this paragraph, 

5 the Corporation shall submit to the Committee 

6 on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 

7 and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

8 and Forestry of the Senate a report that de9 scribes— 

10 ‘‘(i) the results of the research and 

11 development carried out under this para12 graph; and 

13 ‘‘(ii) any recommendations with re14 spect to those results.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
JOHNNY WELCH,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4130

Opinion filed October 2, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Johnny Welch, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Estarlin Rafael Valdez ALMONTE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1410

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 13, 2017

Decided: November 1, 2017

*283Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Can-daux, Assistant Director, Matthew Con-nelly, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Estarlin Rafael Valdez Almonte, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an alien convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated felony. We retain jurisdiction only over constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); *see Turkson v. Holder,*667 F.3d 523, 526-27 (4th Cir. 2012); *Gomis v. Holder,*571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[Ajbsent a color-able constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by [8 U.S.C. § ] 1252(a)(2)(D).”).

Upon review, we find that Valdez Al-monte has not raised any reviewable issues. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review 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.

*PETITION DISMISSED*
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Dementia Care.                    

*Date:*                         March 17, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building 7201, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 827-3101,                         *dario.dieguez@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 10, 2022.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03249 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wendell CARSON, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-13604 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 24, 2017)

Cherie Krigsman, Germaine Seider, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Sara C. Sweeney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Howard C. Anderson, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Meghan Ann Collins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, Wendell Carson, III, Coleman, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HULL, WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Donna Lee Elm, appointed counsel for Wendell Carson, III, in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Carson’s revocation of supervised release and sentence are

AFFIRMED.