alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymondo ACUNA, also known as Raymond Acuna, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11225 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 30, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Warren St. John, Esq., Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Raymondo Acuna appeals his above-guidelines prison sentence for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of his crime of conviction and thus constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We review his constitutional claim *de novo. United States v. Romero-Cruz,*201 F.3d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 2000).

Acuna’s assertion that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is without merit. The Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime for which it is imposed. *Solem v. Helm,*463 U.S. 277, 288, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). When evaluating an Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge, we make a threshold comparison between the gravity of the charged offense and the severity of the sentence. *McGruder v. Puckett,*954 F.2d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 1992). We look to *Rummel v. Estelle,*445 U.S. *423263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980), as a benchmark. *United States v. Gonzales,*121 F.3d 928, 943 (5th Cir. 1997), *abrogated on other grounds by United States v. O’Brien,*560 U.S. 218, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 176 L.Ed.2d 979 (2010).

The 200-month prison sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the severity of Acuna’s drug offense when measured against the benchmark in *Rmnmel, See*445 U.S. at 284-85,100 S.Ct. 1133. Accordingly, Acuna’s Eighth Amendment claim fails. *See McGruder,*954 F.2d at 315-17.

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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 8009** 

CHAUNCEY DEMETRIUS BENNETT , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; DOUGLAS MATTHEWS, Captain; STEPHEN T. MOYER, Secretary; RICHARD GRAHAM, JR., Warden

- W.C.I.; WAYNE WEBB, Commissioner; LARRY HOGAN, Governor , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. James K. Bredar , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 03748

- JKB )

Submitted : April 19, 2016 Decided: April 29, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Chauncey Demetrius Bennett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Chauncey Demetrius Bennett appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly , we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Bennett v. Green , No. 1:15

- cv - 03748

- JKB (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court a nd argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
<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 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, Henry, F.
Blissenbach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to 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/ Henry F. Blissenbach
                                               ------------------------------
                                               Henry F. Blissenbach
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               May 5, 2004
#### Brian CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF CONCORDIA; Concordia Police Department; Aaron Rucker, Police Officer; Jim Lynn, Police Chief, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-3671

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 6, 2016

Filed: December 21, 2016

*944Brian K. Campbell, Holden, MO, pro se.

No appearance for appellees.

Before SHEPHERD, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Brian Campbell appeals after the District Court dismissed his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After careful review, we conclude that Campbell’s claim that he was arrested without probable cause established a basis for jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (providing that every person acting under color of state law may be held liable for depriving another of constitutional rights); Hannah v. City of Overland, 795 F.2d 1385, 1389 (8th Cir. 1986) (“[A] war-rantless arrest without probable cause violates an individual’s constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.”). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Campbell’s complaint, and we remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings. We also grant Campbell’s pending motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Ray A. ALLEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jeffrey D. FISHMAN, Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4810

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EPA Meeting with Hess Oil April 12, 2012 EPA OUST staff met with representative of Hess Oil to discuss the proposed changes to the UST regulations. Discussion included interstitial integrity testing of older s ys tems, walkthroughs and field constructed tanks. **Attendees:** EPA

– Li z McDermott, Cho Yi Kwan, Tim Smith, Paul Miller, Linda Gerber, Tim Roberts, Mark Barolo, Erin Knighton, Caroly n Hoskinson Hess Corporation

– Dawn Coughlin, Jim Howard, Peter Haid K & L Gates

– Cliff Rothenstein
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6438 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6438

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend expensing of 
                    environmental remediation costs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2023

  Ms. Sherrill (for herself and Mr. Turner) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend expensing of 
                    environmental remediation costs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Brownfields Redevelopment Tax 
Incentive Reauthorization Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 198(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``incurred after December 31, 2011'' and 
inserting the following: ``incurred--
            ``(1) after December 31, 2011, and before January 1, 2023, 
        or
            ``(2) after December 31, 2026.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to expenditures paid or incurred after December 31, 2022.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-102082, 333-88770,333-88730, 333-30088, 333-88811, 333-48260, 333-52644, 333-75736 and 333-111548) and Form S-3 (No. 333-83491) of TIBCO Software Inc. of our report dated February 11, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/     PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

San Jose, California 

February 11, 2005
# Continuation of the National Emergency Concerning the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic

On March 13, 2020, by Proclamation 9994, the President declared a national emergency concerning the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause significant risk to the public health and safety of the Nation. For this reason, the national emergency declared on March 13, 2020, and beginning March 1, 2020, must continue in effect beyond March 1, 2022. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency declared in Proclamation 9994 concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 2022-03972

Billing code 3395-F2-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Tortorice II, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 907]

Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered September 26, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree.

In July 2002, defendant was charged in a superior court information with criminal contempt in the first degree after he was involved in a physical altercation with his wife and violated an existing order of protection. He pleaded to this charge and, as part of the plea, executed a written waiver of his right to appeal. On September 26, 2002, defendant was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years. On that date, County Court also issued a permanent order of protection directing defendant not to have any contact with the victim, which order was to remain in effect until September 26, 2010.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that County Court set an illegal expiration date for the order of protection and did not comply with the requirements of CPL 530.12 (5). Preliminarily, we note that insofar as defendant’s challenge goes to the legality of a portion of the sentence, it is not encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 9 [1989]; *People v Espino,*279 AD2d 798, 799 [2001]; *see e.g. People v Holmes,*294 AD2d 871, 872 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d *795730 [2002]). Turning to the merits, CPL 530.12 (5) provides that the duration of an order of protection issued upon felony-conviction of a crime between spouses may not exceed the greater of “(i) five years from the date of such conviction, or (ii) three years from the date of the expiration of the maximum term of an indeterminate or the term of a determinate sentence of imprisonment actually imposed.” Here, the order of protection was set to expire eight years after the date of defendant’s conviction and five years after the date of the expiration of the maximum term of defendant’s sentence, well in excess of the statutory time period. The People concede that this was error. Therefore, the order of protection must be amended accordingly *(see People v Holmes,*294 AD2d 871, 872 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 730 [2002]; *see also People v Puno,*294 AD2d 875, 876 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 680 [2002]; *People v Goodband,*291 AD2d 584, 586 [2002]; *People v Sullivan,*284 AD2d 917, 919 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 942 [2001], 97 NY2d 658 [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Saratoga County for resentencing limited solely to changing the expiration date of the order of protection, and, as so modified, affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6473 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6473

   To amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to reauthorize the 
        Community Connect Grant Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 21, 2023

Ms. Stansbury introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to reauthorize the 
        Community Connect Grant Program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Community Connect Grant Program Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. COMMUNITY CONNECT GRANT PROGRAM.

    Section 604 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 
950bb-3) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``less than the'' 
                and all that follows through the period at the end and 
                inserting the following: ``less than--
                    ``(A) a 100-Mbps downstream transmission capacity; 
                and
                    ``(B) a 20-Mbps upstream transmission capacity.''; 
                and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)--
                            (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph 
                        (A), by striking ``an area'' and inserting ``a 
                        rural area'';
                            (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``10-
                        Mbps'' and inserting ``25-Mbps''; and
                            (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``1-
                        Mbps'' and inserting ``3-Mbps'';
            (2) in subsection (d)(2)(A), by striking ``area; or'' and 
        inserting ``area (including any eligible broadband service that 
        will be provided in the future in the eligible service area 
        pursuant to enforceable commitments for network deployment 
        applicable under another broadband funding program); or''; and
            (3) in subsection (g), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
        ``2028''.
                                 <all>
```
Scott HUMINSKI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. TOWN OF GILBERT, AZ, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1009

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**iDNA,
      INC.**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**


**AND
      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      James
      J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the
“Registrant”), in connection with the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended April 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), do hereby represent, warrant and
      certify ,
      in
      compliance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 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, as amended; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.








/s/
      James
      J. McNamara





Name:
      James J. McNamara


Title:
      Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


(principal
      executive officer)




Date: June
      16 ,
      2008







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to iDNA, Inc. and will be retained by iDNA,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.









42
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,557
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,364
<PP&E>                                         219,744
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 248,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,795
<BONDS>                                          1,780
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   248,633
<SALES>                                        159,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,442
<CGS>                                           65,705
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   210
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,475
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,458
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,375
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,375
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05


</TABLE>
ex105.htm


Exhibit 10.5


 



EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


     This amended Executive Employment Agreement (the “Amended Agreement”) is executed on May 16, 2012 (the “Effective Date”) and is between Vidaroo Corp, a Nevada Corp. (the “Company”) and Ian McDaniel (the “Officer”).


 


RECITALS:


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Officer originally entered into an employment agreement (the “Agreement”) dated May 1, 2008 that was subsequently amended on 11/6/08, and 11/10/09 (the “Amendments”).


 


WHEREAS, the Officer desires to accept a continued role as Production President with the Company.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein set forth, the parties hereby re-affirm the Agreement and Amendments.  Company and Officer agree to the following further amendments as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
Term of Employment. The period of employment of Officer by the Company under the Agreement (the Employment Period) shall be deemed to have commenced on the April 1, 2012 and shall continue until March 31, 2015, unless terminated sooner under Section 6 of the Agreement.







 



	
2.  

	
Compensation.







 


(a)           Salary. The Company shall pay to Officer a base salary of $120,000 per year, plus any bonuses and/or stock options as granted under this and previous agreements or those granted from time to time in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors.  Should Company wish to provide Salary in the form of Stock, Company and officer, upon mutual agreement, may agree to substitute Common Stock at a conversion price of $0.02/share.


 


(b)           Health Insurance. As additional compensation for the Officer, the Company shall provide or maintain the medical and health insurance benefits on the same terms and conditions as are made available to all employees of the Company generally.


 


(c)           Stock Options. The Company hereby reaffirms previously issued stock Options to Officer and is providing/affirming additional Stock Options all to be provided at an exercise price of $0.05, as further indicated in the table below.


 



	
Historical Award:


 

	  
	  	
Date of award

	
Number of Options

	
Status


	  	
5/1/08

	
666,667

	
Vested


	  	  	  	  
	
Current contractual award:

	  
	  	
5/16/12

	
2,000,000

	
Vested


	  	
5/16/12

	
1,500,000

	
Vests ratably over contract period







 


Upon vesting these Options shall be exercisable at anytime by the Holder as further described in the executed Vidaroo Corporation Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreement.


 


(d)           Performance incentive:  Officer shall be compensated for the performance of the Production services business unit (“Business Unit”).  Officer shall receive Compensation equivalent to 10% of the Gross Margin of the business unit.  Such Compensation shall be due and payable in cash.  Should the Company be unable to pay said Incentive in cash, Company may compensate Officer in Stock valued at $0.02 issued at mutual agreement between Company and Officer.


 




	 Vidaroo Corp. 	 	 	Officer:	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
/s/Thomas Moreland 

	 	 	
/s/ Ian McDaniel