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

No. 16-50497

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 2, 2017

Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S., Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S., Stacey H. Sullivan, Assistant U.S., Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S., Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lechaun D. Baker, Lompoc, CA, pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lechaun D. Baker appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Baker contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Baker’s contention, the record reflects that the sentencing court determined that his offense involved 8.94 kilograms of actual methamphetamine. Even after Amendment 782, the base offense level for that drug amount is 38. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1)(2014). Because Amendment 782 did not lower Baker’s applicable guideline range, the district court correctly concluded that Baker is ineligible for a sentence reduction. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a); *Leniear,*574 F.3d at 673-74.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6077 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6077

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reinstate the authority of 
  the Secretary of Education to make Federal Direct Stafford Loans to 
                  graduate and professional students.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 2023

    Ms. Chu (for herself, Mr. Peters, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Dean of 
  Pennsylvania, Mr. Beyer, Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Brownley, Ms. Titus, Mr. 
     Swalwell, Ms. Norton, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. 
 Schakowsky, and Mr. Takano) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reinstate the authority of 
  the Secretary of Education to make Federal Direct Stafford Loans to 
                  graduate and professional students.

    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 ``Protecting Our Students by 
Terminating Graduate Rates that Add to Debt Act'' or the ``POST GRAD 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE FEDERAL DIRECT STAFFORD 
              LOANS TO GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS.

    Section 455(a)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087e(a)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``Temporary'' 
        before ``Termination''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
        (i), by inserting ``, and ending on or before June 30, 2023'' 
        after ``2012''.

SEC. 3. INAPPLICABILITY OF RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS.

    The amendments made by this Act shall not be subject to the 
requirements of section 482(c) or 492 of the Higher Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1089(c); 1098a).
                                 <all>
```
Philip A. PENSTON, Appellant, v. Janice PENSTON, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4114

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

Ingrid Anderson, Clearwater, for Appellant.

Joy-Ann Demas of Steven J. Glaros & Associates, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-94,079-01

NO. WR-94,119-01

IN RE STARR SMITH, Relator

IN RE KOLTON HODGES, Relator

ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF PROHIBITION

TRIAL CAUSE NO. 1626189 IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT

TRIAL CAUSE NO. 1565223 IN THE 179TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relators, through respective counsel, have filed motions for leave to file petitions for writs

of prohibition under this Court’s original jurisdiction. Both Relators contend that Harris County

officials have unlawfully created a district court and have transferred their cases from a legitimate

district court created by the Legislature to an illegitimate district court created by the Harris County

Commissioners Court and the Harris County District Court Judges.

Respondents, the Harris CountyCommissioners Court and the Harris County District Court

Judges, are invited to provide this Court with a response to Relators’ claims. The response may be

provided by the Harris County Attorney’s Office, representatives of which have already filed in this
2

Court notices of appearance in these cases. Any response shall be filed with this Court within thirty

(30) days of the date of this order.

Filed: October 5, 2022

Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,414
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             266
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,775
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     42,747
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,451
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        193,092
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 293,024
<DEPOSITS>                                     257,678
<SHORT-TERM>                                    14,189
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                 88
<LONG-TERM>                                        105
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,964
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 293,024
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,943
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  966
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    47
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,956
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,147
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 188
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,621
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,236
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,583)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (943)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.36)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.43
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,322
<LOANS-PAST>                                       337
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,792
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,137
<RECOVERIES>                                       137
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,268
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,268
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tiburcio Alejandro RUBIO-LARA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41124 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

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

Tiburcio Alejandro Rubio-Lara, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tiburcio Alejandro Rubio-Lara has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rubio-Lara has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
#### Paul E. SEELIG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George T. SOLOMON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6371

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Decided: September 15, 2017

Paul E. Seelig, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Paul E. Seelig seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief'on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Seelig has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Chromcraft Revington, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 1, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Benjamin M. Anderson-Ray, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and
Frank T. Kane, Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
            of the Company.

/s/ Benjamin M. Anderson-Ray
--------------------------------------
Benjamin M. Anderson-Ray
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

November 4, 2005

/s/ Frank T. Kane
----------------------------
Frank T. Kane
Vice President-Finance and
Chief Financial Officer

November 4, 2005
exh_102.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


Irv Alpert


Executive Vice President


2012 Sales Incentive Plan












Objectives:








	
1.  

	
Retain and grow all current content licensing partnerships







 



	
2.  

	
Develop a plan to expand content license partnerships and channel sales for Onvia services







 



	
3.  

	
Acquire new content licensing partners in 2012 as quickly as possible







 












Compensation







Four bonus opportunities:








	
1.  

	
 $25,000 bonus for retention of current content licensing partnerships







 



	
2.  

	
5% of every sales dollar from Tier 1 bookings to Tier 2 bookings







 



	
3.  

	
10% of every sales dollar from Tier 2 bookings to Plan







 



	
4.  

	
$38k for annual goal achievement







 







Total Bonus Opportunity:  $115k
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 1, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10186

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ALBERTO JOHNSON-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CR-15-ALL

--------------------

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Alberto Johnson-Ramirez appeals from the sentence

imposed pursuant to his guilty-plea conviction for transportation

of illegal aliens and aiding and abetting. Johnson-Ramirez

argues that he should not have received an adjustment for

obstruction of justice and he should have received an adjustment

for acceptance of responsibility.

The Government moves for dismissal of this appeal because,

as part of his plea agreement, Johnson-Ramirez waived his right

to appeal his conviction and sentence except on grounds that the
No. 06-10186

-2-

sentence exceeded the statutory maximum punishment or that his

counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Johnson-Ramirez’s

arguments do not rest upon either of these exceptions to his

waiver. Johnson-Ramirez did not respond to the Government’s

motion and did not challenge the validity of his guilty plea or

the appeal-waiver provision.

There is nothing in the record on appeal to suggest that

Johnson-Ramirez did not knowingly and voluntarily waived his

right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, Johnson-Ramirez’s

appeal is barred by the waiver contained in the plea agreement. 

See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir.

1994). The Government’s motion to summarily affirm is granted. 

The Government’s motion to dismiss or alternatively for an

extension of time is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO SUMMARILY AFFIRM GRANTED; MOTION TO

DISMISS OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Report of Travelstar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB/A-2 for the for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry
Galant, 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:

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

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

/s/ Jerry Galant
---------------------------
Jerry Galant
Chief Financial Officer
December 10, 2007
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The certification set forth
below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Jonathan J. Judge, the Chief Executive Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                         
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------
|Date: November 12, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /S/    JONATHAN J.
JUDGE
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Jonathan J. Judge       
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.2 Convertible Promissory Note


Exhibit 10.2




CREATIVE EDGE NUTRITION, INC.

CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE




THESE SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933. THEY MAY NOT BE SOLD, OFFERED FOR SALE, TRANSFERRED, PLEDGED OR HYPOTHECATED IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH SECURITIES UNDER SUCH ACT OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED OR UNLESS SUCH SECURITIES ARE SOLD PURSUANT TO RULE 144 OF SUCH ACT.




			
	$43,383

	May 2, 2012

	New York, New York







FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Creative Edge Nutrition, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Maker”), promises to pay to the order of Gary B. Wolff (“Holder”), the aggregate principal amount of Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Four ($43,384) Dollars plus interest (the “Aggregate Loan Amount”), at 2% interest annually. Payment shall be made by Maker to Holder at the offices of Holder, located at 488 Madison Avenue, New York 10022, or to such other office as Holder may, from time to time, designate in writing to Maker.




The Aggregate Loan Amount shall be due and payable as follows:




			
	Payment Amount

	 

	Due Date


	$43,384

	 

	May 7, 2012







Payment shall be made in lawful tender of the United States and may be made at any time without penalty or premium.




The unpaid balance under this Note (or any portion thereof) shall be convertible at the option of Holder into shares of Maker’s Common Stock at any time prior to the earlier of repayment in full of this Note or the Maturity Date, upon Maker’s receipt of written notice by Holder. The price per share of Maker’s Common Stock into which such unpaid balance may be converted shall be $.001.




In the event Holder institutes an action to collect this Note, Maker will pay all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with such action. Maker hereby waives notice of default, presentment or demand for payment, protest or notice of nonpayment or dishonor and all other notices or demands relative to this instrument.




In the event a court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision of this Note to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect any other provision of this Note and all such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.




This Note shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflicts of law provisions of the State of Nevada or of any other state.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker has caused this Convertible Promissory Note to be issued as of the date first above written.







Creative Edge Nutrition, Inc.







By: /s/   Bill Chaaban                              

Bill Chaaban, President, CEO, Director
# J.onathan Rocha 4873 N. Morning Star Dr. IPrescott Valley, AZ 86.314 I928-8.30-4552 I jonblankrocha@gmail.com

January 20, 20 16**JJ~S**

## ..**Pep~u::tmenJ~Qt .Ir(lg~portatio11**  . Docket Management System 1200 NewJersey Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

333 PetitionLetter; Supplemental Document

Dear Sir orMadam, This letter is to be used as a supplemental document for a 333 Exemption Petition letter that I submitted onJuly 3, 2015. The ID number assigned to mypetition is 

### FAA-2015..3787-0001 and a Docket No. of 

### FAA-2015-3787. Due to a lack of understanding in the petition process at the time of submittal, I feel that tny petition letterwas missing pertinent and more accurateinformation thatwould assist in your department's review of my petition. I would like the followinginformation to be added and considered alongside my petition letter:

Full LegalName:Jonathan Rocha (not 'jon Rocha" assubmitted) CertificateNo.: 3362953 Privileges: Private Pilot; Airplane Single Engine Land Date ofIssuance: February 20,2014 Clarificationfor Petition: Pursuant to Section 333 ofthe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Mr.Jonathan Rocha has filed a petition dated,July 3, 2015, for exemption as an operator of Small UnmannedAircraft Systems (UAS) used for remote sensing to support aerial data collection, specifically photography andvideo capture ofcommercial and residential real estate properties. Mr. Rocha seeks an exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) listed in the petition referenced above to allow commercial operation of its UAs, so longas the operations are conducted under the conditions specified within the petition letter submitted onJuly 3, 2015. Additionally; my intentionfor the petition submitted was to receive an exemption from the FAR that would cover the commercial use of the 

### VAS for Prescott Realty Inc., an Arizona real estate corporation, with Mr. Rocha being the sole and current operator of the 

### VAS. I am currently operating as an Independent Contractorfor Prescott Realty; Inc. as a real estate agent.

I apologize for the inconvenience offiling an incomplete orinconclusive petition letter and hope that this additional information will allow for a betterunderstanding of the premise to my petition. Respectfully;

Jonathan Rocha Petitioner /Owner of 

### VAS

Page 2