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

No. 16-60673 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 13, 2017

*293Susan Spears Bradley, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of- Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Stephen Carr, Esq., Carr *&*Calderon, Cleveland, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

A jury convicted Chris Eugene Cosner of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced Cosner as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 to a total of 360 months of imprisonment. Cosner now appeals, contending that his bank robbery conviction is not a “crime of violence” for the purposes of serving as a predicate offense for his § 924(c)(1) conviction or for application of the career-offender guideline. He also asserts that the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations and that trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. We affirm.

First, as Cosner concedes, his challenges to the characterization of his federal bank robbery conviction of a “crime of violence” are foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Brewer,*which held that federal bank robbery is categorically a “crime of violence” as defined by § 4B1.2(a)(l) for the purpose of the career-offender guideline. *See*848 F.3d 711, 714-16 (6th Cir. 2017). Because § 4B1.2(a)(l) defines “crime of violence” “in exactly the same manner as § 924(c)(3)(A),” *see United States v. Jones,*854 F.3d 737, 740 (5th Cir. 2017), *Brewer*necessarily dictates that federal bank robbery is also categorically a “crime of violence” for the purposes of his § 924(c)(1) conviction, *see*848 F.3d at 714-16.

Second, Cosner fails to establish either that the district court impermissibly participated in plea discussions or, if it did, that such participation had any effect on the fairness and impartiality of his trial and sentencing. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1), (h); *United States v. Crowell,*60 F.3d 199, 205 (5th Cir. 1995).

Third, we are unpersuaded that this is a “rare case” in which the record is sufficiently developed to allow this court to consider Cosner’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the first instance on direct appeal. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we dismiss those claims without prejudice to collateral review. *Id.*

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
4500445684 10/07

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PNOIES NO.

STD—521 REV. 12-88

PUBLICATIONS AUTHORIZATION AND INVOICE 152198

PUBLICATIONS AUTHORIZATION (To be completed by agency):

TO: (PE E.AN)AOORESSE NEWSPAPER) • FEDEGAL I.N.05EC.24O, ESOM: (NAME ANP.ADDRE.55 OF AGENCY) AGENCYTELEPHONE NO. Ic aaing iimes : 24—tib!bUt) Yvette M. House :717—787—9495 Attu: Legal Advertising Bureau of Air Quality P.O. Box 582 12th Floor

Reading, PA 19603—0582 Harrisburg, PA 17105

HEREWITH IS ENCLOSED COPY FOR PUBUCATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROPOSALS TO TYPE OF AD

EMPLOY PURCHASE CONTRACT SELL CLASSIFIED LEGAL NOTICE

PUBUSH ADVERTISEMENT (NO. OFT1MES) MAXIMUM NO. OF LINES DATE ORDER NO.

1 December 6, 2009

DATESOFINSERTION SIGN REFORAGE

December 10, 2009 L. 4

_

,

You, as vendor, are authorized to publish this advertisement in your newspaper, subject to the terms of this order, as

follows: Advertisement to be published in regular advertising columns, no position specified; caption of two lines and signature

to be in capitals and subject matter and title of officer.to be set solid in type regularly used by your newspaper for public (legal)

nolice advertising; charge to be made at the rate charged to and paid by commercial advertisers for matter similarly set and

occupying similar space; advertisement to be run in the editions specified above. Vendor agrees that, in the performance of any

contract awarded to it hereunder, said vendor will not discriminate against any employe or other persons on account of race, color,sex, religious creed, ancestry, age or national origin and that the Commonwealth, upon receipt of satisfactory evidence of suchdiscrimination, shall have the right to cancel said contract. Return this copyat once if you will not accept this advertisement underthe terms

set forth.

Proof of advertising in the form of a tearsheet must be included on Parts 1,2 & 3. Return original and two copies (signed

by the editor or publisher) to Agency listed above. Part 1 must be notarized. Part 4 is yours.

Commonwealth to be billed only for actual number of printed lines published.

ACCOUNT

FUND DEPT APP YEAR LOG ORG COSTFUNCTION - OBJ AMOUNT

CODE 5ft O77OOOI . .

. (L 3 ‘7QO 3’? 3O

INVOICE (To be completed by publisher)

DATEOFINSERTION ACTUALNO.OFPRINTEDUNES COSTPERLINE

.- . istAd 12/10/09 335 2.15 720.25

2ndAd

3rd Ad

.

BOLD CHARGE 2.00

..,. APYIDAVIT 1 RGE .uu

: GRAND TOTAL-ø 727.25

-:

.

PASTETEARSHEET HERE

c

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania .‘

County of BERES . . .. DAYID GESCHWINDT Before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public in and for said

h

b

i

d

l

d

th d

d 

th

t h

i

_____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________
**Exhibit 10.17**

 

**Marten Transport, Ltd.**

**2005 Non-employee DirectorCompensation Summary**

 

The Board ofDirectors of Marten Transport, Ltd. approved the following fee schedule fornon-employee directors for fiscal year 2005:

 
| Annual Retainer                                 |   | $ | 15,000 |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|---|--------|--------|
| Audit Committee chair                           |   | $ | 20,000 |   |
| Compensation Committee chair                    |   | $ | 5,000  |   |
| Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee chair |   | $ | 2,500  |   |

 

The company generally pays non-employee directors a fee of $500 foreach Board or committee meeting attended, and reimburses them for out-of-pocketexpenses of attending meetings.

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dave Andrae TAYLOR, a/k/a Indian, a/k/a Nicholas, a/k/a Spike, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6388

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 18, 2017

Decided: August 9, 2017

Dave Andrae Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Katherine Lee Martin, Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorneys, Heather Hart Mansfield, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; Michael Arlen Jagels, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

*210Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dave Andrae Taylor appeals the district court’s order construing his second motion to reduce sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines as a motion to reconsider and denying it for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Taylor,*No. 3:99-cr-00145-REP-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2017). We deny Taylor’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
### SERVE D JUN E 3 , 201 0
U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C ilAiiO ^

I N TH E MATTE RO F CENTRA LFLYIN GSERVICES , INC
. FA A DOCKE T NO
. CPlOSWOOOl (Civi l Penalty Action ) DMSNo
. FAA-2010-001 6 

### AMENDE D PROCEDURA L ORDE R Th e court ha s bee n notifie do f

apotentia l settlemen t

i n thi s case . Accordingly , paragrap h# 2 o f

th e Procedura l Orde r

i s amende da s follows : WHEREFORE , th e partie s b e an dar e hereb y ORDERE D t o adher e t o th e followin g procedura l schedule :

.. . O n o r before Augus t

1 , 2010 , th e partie s shal l conclud e al l discovery including , but

not limite dto , depositions , documen t production , response s t o productio n request s and/o r interrogatories
. I f

th e partie s canno t

resolv e a discovery disput e the y shal l submi t th e disput e t o th e undersigne dfo r resolutio n i n atimel y manner.. .

U.S
. Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

Th e cour t does no t anticipat e schedulin g thi s cas e prio r t o 1 Augus t 2010
.FA A Docke t No
. CPlOSWOOO

l (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-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Central Flyin g Service , Inc. , Responden t Attention : Richar dN
. Holbert , Presiden t 150 1 Bon dStree t Littl e Rock , A R7220 2 TEL : 501-375-3245 FAX : 501-375-727 4 Stellamari s Williams , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Southwes t

Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n For t Worth , T X 76193-000 7 TEL : 817-222-508 1 FAX : 817-222-509 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e was b

y U.S
. Mail
. For

servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Hearin g Docket , Federa

l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S
. W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Roo

m 2014 , Washington , D

C 20591 , Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
#### Peter Charos, Respondent, v Thomas Charos, Appellant, and Camille Carlino et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[769 NYS2d 906]

In a shareholder’s derivative action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant Thomas Charos appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated September 10, 2002, as failed to accurately incorporate the provisions of a stipulation of settlement entered on the record on December 18, 2001.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to issue a new order which shall accurately reflect the provisions of the stipulation.

The preferred remedy when a party alleges that an order or judgment does not accurately incorporate the terms of a stipulation is by motion in the trial court for resettlement or vacatur of the order or judgment, rather than by appeal *(see*CPLR 5019 [a]; *Herpe v Herpe,*225 NY 323, 327 [1919]; *Matter of Beatrice T.,*286 AD2d 686, 687 [2001]; *Matter of Gesvantner v Dominguez,*
      *468273 AD2d 383 [2000]; *Pizzuto v Pizzuto,*162 AD2d 443 [1990]). However, we have examined the stipulation and order appealed from and find that in certain respects the latter does not conform to the former *(see Matter of Gesvantner v Dominguez, supra; Pizzuto v Pizzuto, supra).*

As the defendant Thomas Charos correctly notes, the second, third, seventh, and tenth decretal paragraphs of the order appealed from do not, as required by the terms of the December 18, 2001, stipulation, provide for the exchange of general releases. Therefore, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to issue a new order which accurately reflects the terms of the stipulation *(see Matter of Gesvantner v Dominguez, supra; Pizzuto v Pizzuto, supra).*Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### The State v. Welsh.

, _ . . . _ 1. Criminal Law: instructions as to lower grades of the offense. On a trial for an assault with intent to commit great bodily injury, the court instructed the jury that they might find the defendant guilty of the crime charged, or of a simple assault. He was found guilty as charged. The evidence showed that if he was guilty at all, his crime was not less than an assault and battery. *Held*that it was reversible error for the court to neglect to instruct the jury that they might find the defendant guilty of that offense. (See opinion for cases cited.)

*Appeal from Winneshiek District Court.*

Monday, October 24.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of assault with intent to inflict a great bodily injury. He appeals.

*L. Bullís,*for appellant.

*A. J. Baker, Attorney-general,*for the State.

Rothrook, J'.

One of the instructions given by the court *107to the jury was as follows: “The crime charged includes a simple assault, and it will be your duty to say whether the defendant was guilty or not, and, if guilty, whether his crime is an assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury, or simple assault.” The defendant complains of this instruction, and others given by the court, because they were not directed that the crime charged included assault and battery. The indictment charges that the defendant made an assault upon one Goetz, and beat and bruised him, and inflicted a great bodily injury upon him. The evidence shows that, if the defendant was guilty of any crime, it was, to say the least, an assault and battery. That being the state of the proof, the jury should have been instructed as to such lower degree of the crime charged. *State v. Walters, 45*Iowa, 390; *State v.*Clemons, 51 Id., 279; *State v. Glynden,*Id., 463; *State v. Kegan,*62 Id., 106.

The counsel for the state contends that the omission to instruct the jury on the crime of assault and battery was no prejudice to the defendant, because such offense and a simple assault are of the same grade, with the same .penalty attached. We do not think this position can be sustained. It is true, the court might, under the law, inflict the same punishment for said offenses. But the jury might have thought it proper, under the evidence, to find a verdict for the crime of assault and battery, rather than for the higher crime charged in the indictment. Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,815,138
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,833,926
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,621,856
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  9,902,244
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,625,441
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,625,168
<LOANS>                                    103,143,822
<ALLOWANCE>                                    795,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             128,067,362
<DEPOSITS>                                  72,990,960
<SHORT-TERM>                                 5,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,115,557
<LONG-TERM>                                 19,933,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    17,971,281
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,056,231
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             128,067,362
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,142,568
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              154,313
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               141,297
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,438,178
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             866,501
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,192,373
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,245,805
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   45,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                555,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                692,613
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     692,613
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   427,230
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.11
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   116,114
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               750,417
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      172
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              795,245
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        795,245
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7714

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 5, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

*194Rafael Hernandez-Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Hernandez-Rodriguez appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). On appeal, he challenges the extent of the district court’s reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court reduced his sentence to the bottom of his amended Guidelines range based on Amendment 782. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Hernandez-Rodriguez,*No. 1:11-cr-00309-WO-5 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6435 

To ensure that a declaration for a major disaster or emergency is made 

on a timely basis, rural areas receive assistance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2023 

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To ensure that a declaration for a major disaster or emergency is made on a timely basis, rural areas receive 

assistance, 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 ‘‘Making Aid for Local 

5 Disasters Equal Now Act’’ or the ‘‘MALDEN Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RURAL ASSISTANCE. 

7 Section 326(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Re8 lief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5165d(c)) 

9 is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6435 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (3)(D) by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as para4 graph (6); and 

5 (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(4) with respect to a rural area impacted by 

8 a wildfire, work in coordination with the State or 

9 Tribal emergency management agency to provide 

10 guidance to the emergency manager of the rural 

11 area on developing a recovery team, including— 

12 ‘‘(A) by providing resources to help prevent 

13 flooding, mudslides, rockslides or any other nat14 ural disaster that could result after a wildfire; 

15 and 

16 ‘‘(B) by identifying available resources for 

17 both short-term and long-term recovery, includ18 ing resources to help prevent a future natural 

19 disaster within the burned area; 

20 ‘‘(5) in a case in which a request for assistance 

21 to an individual or household in a rural area under 

22 section 408 is denied, work in coordination with the 

23 affected State or Tribal emergency management 

24 agency to make case workers available to the resiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:05 Nov 27, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6435.IH H6435

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6435 IH

1 dents impacted by the major disaster or emergency; 

2 and’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned,  the Chief Executive  Officer of W Holding  Company,  Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

     (a)  the Form 10-K/A of the Company  for the Year Ended  December  31,
          2002, filed on the date hereof with the Securities  and Exchange
          Commission (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                          /s/ Frank C. Stipes
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Frank C. Stipes
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          May 12, 2003




A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to W Holding  Company,  Inc. and will be retained by W Holding Company,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### William G. Sands, Receiver, etc., Respondent, *v.*Edward C. Graves, impleaded, etc., Appellant.

(Argued May 10, 1871;

decided September term, 1871.)

Action upon a premium note given to the .¿Etna Insurance Company of Utica, a mutual insurance company, organized under the general law passed April 10,1849.

Judgment reversed upon the ground that the assessment was for more than the proportion of the losses and expenses with which defendant’s note was properly chargeable.

*Wm. Porter*for the appellant.

*p[. S. Mygatt*for the respondent.

Earl, C., reads for reversal.

All concur, except G-ray, C., not voting.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.