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

No. 16-41041 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 25, 2017

Jimmy Eric Pardue, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

' Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jorge Agustin-Garcia pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to one count of illegal reentry. Agustin-Garcia’s presen-tence report (PSR) assigned a base offense level of eight, recommended an eight-level increase pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) (2014) based on his 2010 conviction for attempted sexual assault of a child, and assigned a two-level decrease based on acceptance of responsibility for the offense, resulting in a total offense level of 14. Agustin-Garcia’s previous convictions for petit larceny, making a terroristic threat, third-degree assault, attempted sexual assault of a child, failure to appear in court, driving while intoxicated, and a prior illegal reentry charge yielded a criminal history score of 14 that established a criminal history category of VI. The district court granted the Government’s motion for an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, which resulted in a guidelines range of 33-41 months. Agustin-Garcia was sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment with no term of supervised release. He did not object to the calculation of his criminal history score in the district court.

Agustin-Garcia now argues that the district court reversibly erred in assigning him two criminal history points for both the terroristic threat and assault convictions because he was sentenced for each on the same day. He argues (and the Government concedes) that his correct criminal history category would have been a V. A criminal history category of V and an offense level of 14 would have given a guidelines range of 30-37 months imprisonment.

This court reviews the district court’s sentence for plain error. Given Agustin-Garcia’s lengthy criminal history, including a previous conviction for illegal reentry, and his sentence that falls within both the correct and incorrect guideline ranges, this court finds that the district court’s computational error did no offense to the'fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

*392For these reasons, we AFFIRM the sentence of the district court.

*

 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.
July 2, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PATRICIA MARTIN, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00033-CV V.

GREGG BRINKLEY AND SARAH BRINKLEY, Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed October 14, 2013 in favor of 

appellees Gregg Brinkley and Sarah Brinkley, was heard on the transcript of the 

record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order 

the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant Patricia Martin to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**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 Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Morton’s”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Baldwin, the Chief Financial Officer of Morton’s, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 Morton’s.

 
| Date:  November 14, 2005 |
|-------------------------------|
|                          |
|                          | /s/ THOMAS  J. BALDWIN |   |
|                          | Thomas J.  Baldwin |
|                          | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Devonte Jashawn COBB v. STATE

CR-15-0014

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

Reh. denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S JUNE 30, 1997 REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,813,824
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,029,290
<PP&E>                                         708,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                 279,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,690,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          571,591
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,408
<COMMON>                                        10,115
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,107,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,690,719
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               266,596
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,710,901
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,444,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,444,305)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,444,305)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.25)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000
<CURRENCY>                                  U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                                  JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                    MAR-29-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                           1
<CASH>                                                               26,755
<SECURITIES>                                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        94,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          5,474
<INVENTORY>                                                          76,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    211,325
<PP&E>                                                               42,421
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       16,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      309,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                41,014
<BONDS>                                                             154,498
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                                142
<OTHER-SE>                                                          114,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        309,776
<SALES>                                                             189,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    189,267
<CGS>                                                               135,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       135,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     74,826
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    5,467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     (26,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         (3,649)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 (22,414)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (22,414)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         (1.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         (1.34)
        

</TABLE>
|   | 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 theCompany. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:       March 7, 2008 |   | Natural      Gas Services Group, Inc.                                               |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           | By:    | /s/ Earl      R. Wait                                                          |   |
|                           |   | Earl      R. Wait                                                                   |   |
|                           |   | Vice      President of Accounting (Principal Accounting Officer) and      Treasurer |   |
#### Ruth Torres, Appellant, v Central Parking System et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 629]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), entered December 5, 2002, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict in her favor and for judgment as a matter of law, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she tripped and fell in a hole in the roadway at the foot of a driveway *530leading to the defendants’ parking garage. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendants were negligent in not keeping their premises in a reasonably safe condition, and that such negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, and entered a judgment dismissing the complaint.

There was no evidence to support the plaintiffs contention that the driveway constituted a special use of the public roadway by the defendants that caused the defect at issue *(see Nixdorf v East Islip School Dist.,*276 AD2d 759 [2000], 760; *Simonds v City of New York,*276 AD2d 478, 479 [2000]; *Achkhanian v Town of Oyster Bay,*262 AD2d 510 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that, as a matter of law, the defendants were not at fault in the happening of the accident.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Faith Renay CHOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-108

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10(e)(30)


Annual Performance Incentive Plan for 2018 (“2018 APIP”)


Under the 2018 APIP, executive officers of the Company are eligible to receive performance related cash payments. Payments are, in general, only made if performance objectives established by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) are met. 


The Committee previously approved an incentive target opportunity for 2018, expressed as a percentage of base salary, for each participating officer. The Committee also established overall threshold, target and maximum performance metrics and payout ranges for the 2018 APIP. Certain additional goals were established for some officers based on business unit measures. Additionally, the Committee had established an opportunity for an individual performance component whereby the Committee has the authority to increase or decrease an award based on individual performance. The performance measures and weightings were: Constant Currency Revenue Growth (adjusted to exclude the impact of changes in the translation of foreign currencies into U.S. dollars) (weighted at 33.3%), Adjusted Pre-tax Income (weighted at 33.3%) and Free Cash Flow (weighted at 33.3%). 


The performance against the 2018 APIP goals was as follows: Constant Currency Revenue Growth and Adjusted Pre-tax Income were below threshold and Free Cash Flow was above maximum.
**MUZAK HOLDINGS LLC**

**Section 302 Certifications**

 

**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 Muzak Holdings LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Stephen P. Villa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

March 30, 2004 

/s/ Stephen P. Villa 

Name: Stephen P. Villa 

Title: Chief Financial Officer
- 1 - Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

January 19, 2010

via email and regulations.gov

Esta Rosenberg Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc., Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines for a Statement of Authorization (U.S.-EU Codesharing)

Dockets DOT-OST-2004-19214 and DOT-OST-2003-15191

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, Delta urges that the application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Thuy Cooper Mike Orr, Airline Info
#### UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James W. WITT, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 15-16721

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Bobbie J. Montoya, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Bridget Maria Rowan, Attorney, Jennifer Marie Rubin, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner-Appellee

James W. Witt, Pro Se

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

James W. Witt appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) petition to' enforce a summons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s summons-enforcement decision. *United States v. Richey,*632 F.3d 559, 563 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err by granting the petition because the United States met its burden of establishing its prima facie case for enforcement of the IRS summons, and Witt failed to rebut that showing. *See United States v. Powell,*379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964) (setting forth requirements for establishing a prima facie case for enforcement, and explaining that the burden is on the taxpayer to show an ábuse of the process); *United States v. Dynavac, Inc.,*6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir. 1993) (once a prima facie case is made a heavy burden is placed on the taxpayer to show an abuse of process or the lack of institutional good faith).

We reject as without merit Witt’s contentions that the district court was biased and violated his due process rights.

Witt’s motion filed on April 21, 2016, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                         15,716
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 181,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   185,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              412,902
<PP&E>                                        519,044
<DEPRECIATION>                                108,817
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,021,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         131,664
<BONDS>                                       298,624
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          122
<OTHER-SE>                                     39,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,021,170
<SALES>                                       246,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              246,035
<CGS>                                         218,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 218,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             14,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 5,250
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3,370
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,370
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.28



</TABLE>
Patrick BLOOM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Katherina BLOOM, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2277

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 08, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EX PARTE Karen MCPHERSON

CR-16-0349

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 3, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Chronimed Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 26, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory H. Keane,
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
to the best of my 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

                                               /s/ Gregory H. Keane
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Gregory H. Keane
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               May 5, 2004
STATE EX REL. Darren M. LAURENT v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0278

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator 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. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. 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.