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

No. 16-1223

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 8, 2017

Kurt Bohn, Bradley William Giles, Michael Conrad Johnson, Robert Mark Russel, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Meredith B. Esser, Josh Lee, Timothy Patrick O’Hara, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

This matter is before us on *Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for Summary Affir-mance.*The United States moves for summary affirmance of the district court’s sentencing determination in this case in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145, 2017 WL 855781*780(March 6, 2017). Appellant Bennie Aaron Jones does not oppose the motion.

Upon consideration, the motion is granted. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 134918 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134918 COA: 279148 Berrien CC: 2001-401728-FH LESTER JEROME WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 29, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOCAL 157, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF the PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF the UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, Respondent.

Nos. 15690, 15735.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1966.

Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Laddon, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attys., N. L. R. B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for N. L. R. B.

Robert J. McPeak, James H. Adamson, Terre Haute, Ind., Irving Friedman, Chicago, Ill., for Local 157.

Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and ENOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on the petitions of the National Labor Relations Board and Local 157, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Union). The Board seeks enforcement and the Union seeks review of the Board’s order issued on October 1, 1965 against the Union.

*389The Board’s decision and order are reported at 155 NLRB No. 5.

The charged unfair labor practices occurred at Sullivan, Indiana.

The Board found that the Union violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act1 by inducing and encouraging employees of subcontractors at a construction site to engage in a strike, or refusal to perform services, with an object of forcing the subcontractors to cease doing business with the project’s general contractor; of forcing the general contractor to cease doing business with a manufacturer supplying the general contractor; and of forcing a subcontractor to cease handling the products of that manufacturer. The Board further found that the Union engaged in unlawful coercion of the subcontractors for the same objects.

The Board’s order directs the Union to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and to post appropriate notices.

In substance, the Union charges that the Board erred in finding that the Union violated the Act and that there was not substantial and sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s findings. We do not agree.

In its reported decision and order, the Board approves the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the hearing examiner, adopts them as its own and incorporates them in its reported decision.

We have carefully examined the record in this case, together with the Board’s decision and order. We find ourselves in agreement with the Board and reference is made to the report thereof at 155 NLRB No. 5.

On consideration of the briefs, oral argument, the reported decision and order and the record as a whole, we hold that there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board and that the Board applied the correct legal criteria thereto in arriving at its conclusions.

Finding no error, the order of the Board will be enforced and the Union’s petition for review is denied.

Order enforced, review denied.

1

. 20 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,769
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,199
<INVENTORY>                                      4,567
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,133
<PP&E>                                           5,127
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,749
<BONDS>                                            278
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           887
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,142
<SALES>                                         74,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,175
<CGS>                                           57,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   530
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,248)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,248)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.44)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.44)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### MOHAN L. MEHTA ET AL. *v.*WAFEEK ABDELSAYED ET AL.

*Mohan L. Mehta*and *Radha R. M. Narumanchi,*in support of the petition.

Decided September 30, 1997

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 17250) is denied.
STRUCTURE ACTIVITY TEAM REPORT 

CASE NUMBER: P03-0285

RELATED CASES: 

CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSIONS 

TYPE OF CONCERN: HEALTH ECOTOX 

LEVEL OF CONCERN: 2 2 

KEYWORDS: 

NEURO 

ACUTE 

IRR-E,MM 

UNCERT-DEVEL 

AQUATOX-A,C 

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT 

FATE: Solid 

S (25EC) < 1(E); H < 1.00E-8(E) 

MP (C) = 209(M); BP (C) > 220 dec(M); VP @ 25C (mm) < 1.0E-6(E) 

POTW removal (%) = Anion 90 via biodeg; Cation 50-90 via 

sorption 

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg: Anion wk; Cation mo 

PBT Potential: Anion P1B1T2; Cation P2B1T2 

Sorption to soils/sediments: Anion low; Cation strong-v.strong 

*CEB FATE: Migr to ground water: Anion rapid; Cation negl-slow 

HEALTH: Absorption is nil through the skin based on 

physical/chemical properties and good through the lungs and GI 

tract based on analogs. This compound is in the highly acutely 

toxic range with an oral LD50 of 312 mg/kg in males and 441 mg/kg 

in females. Possible signs of neurotoxicity were noted in the 

acute oral study. The PMN compound is expected to be irritating 

to the eyes and mucous membranes based on the necrosis and 

hemorrhaging seen in the GI tract in the acute oral study. There 

is also uncertain concern for developmental toxicity for the 

benzenesulfonate derivative. 

*CEB HEALTH: Moderate concern (Inhalation only). 

TOXICITY DATA: 

acute oral study in rats - LD50 = 312 mg/kg in males and 441 

mg/kg in females; slight to severe weakness, vasodilation, 

reduced feces, dehydration, piloerection; tremors and convulsions 

seen prior to death in animals that died the day of dosing; 

necrosis and gastric hemorrhage in the glandular gastric mucosa 

and necrosis of the small intestine 

not a skin irritant 
ECOTOX: Predicted (P) and measured (M) toxicity values in mg/L 

(ppm) are: 

fish 96-h LC50 = 3.2 P 

daphnid 48-h LC50 = 2.1 P 

green algal 96-h EC50 <= 2.0 P 

fish Chronic Value (ChV) = 0.300 P 

daphnid ChV = 0.200 P 

algal ChV <= 0.200 P 

Predictions based on SARs for cationic surfactants; SAR chemical 

class = surfactant-cationic-N-monoalkyl; MW396; hardness <180.0 

mg/L as CaCO3; ECs based on 100% active ingredients and mean 

measured concentrations; and TOC <2.0 mg/L; 

moderate concern for toxicity; 

assessment factor =10.0 

concern concentration (CC) = 0.020 mg/L (ppm) 

*CEB ECOTOX: All releases to water 

Becky Jones 564-8919
William Lee HINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4145

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 25, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Matthew Funderburk, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, Sangeon Park,  Chief  Financial  Officer of MB Tech,  Inc. ( the  "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

-    The Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2005 fully complies
     with  the  requirements  of  Section  13 (a)  or 15  (d) of the  Securities
     Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and

-    The information  contained in the quarterly report fairly presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.


Date: April 13, 2006


/s/ Sangeon Park
--------------------------
Sangeon Park
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1

PERIODIC REPORT CERTIFICATION

of the Chief Executive Officer

I, Oakleigh Thorne, Chief Executive Officer of eCollege.com (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 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed 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

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



/s/ Oakleigh Thorne        Oakleigh Thorne
Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2002



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to eCollege.com and will be retained by eCollege.com and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          20,739
<SECURITIES>                                    54,252
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,253
<PP&E>                                           5,399
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,273)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           222
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,686
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   826
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,771)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,771)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.62)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL**


**OFFICER
      REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING**


**FINANCIAL
      STATEMENTS**









I,
      Jeffrey T. Fisher, the Chief Financial Officer of Charter Communications
      Holdings, LLC and Charter Communications Holdings Capital Corporation (the
      "Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the
      Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
      "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:




·
            fully
                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
                Exchange
                Act of 1934; and




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











/s/
      Jeffrey T.
      Fisher


Jeffrey
      T.
      Fisher


Chief
      Financial
      Officer


(Principal
      Financial
      Officer)


March
      30,
      2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demetrius HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7729

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

*274Demetrius Hill, Appellant Pro Se.

John Mcrae AIsup, Terry Michael Mei-necke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hill that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Hill has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. 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*
**Exhibit 31.02**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Lewis R. Belote, III, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Homestore, Inc.; and
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.
Date: April 29, 2005         /s/ LEWIS R. BELOTE, III   Lewis R. Belote, III   *Chief Financial Officer*   
24
#### Michael J. Scales, as Administrator of the Estate of John M. Scales, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Village of Nyack et al., Respondents.

Argued March 1, 1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

*692
      *Ralph Stout*and *Alfred Ekelman*for appellant.

*James I. McGuire*and *George E. Garvey*for Village of Nyack, respondent.

*Edward A. Harmon*and *William E. Lowther*for Lena Koblin, respondent.

*Walter A. McDermott*for Elsie Burns, respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

----

**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 annual report      on Form 20-F of Wavecom SA (the “Company”) for the period ended      December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission      on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ronald D.      Black, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge and belief:

|   | (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. |

Dated: April 7, 2005

|   | /s/ RONALD D.          BLACK |
|--------|------------------------------|

|   | **Ronald D. Black****Chief Executive Officer,****Wavecom SA** |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|

----
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7115

BOOKER T. MCNEILL,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Booker T. McNeill , of Erwin, North Carolina, pro se.

Marla T. Conneely , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With

her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson

, Director, and Mark A. Melnick , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J.

Timinski , Deputy Assistant G eneral Counsel, and Christopher P. McNamee , Staff Attorney, United States Department of Ve terans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Judge Lawrence B. HagelNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7115

BOOKER T. MCNEILL,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

__________ ________________

DECIDED: July 13, 2007

__________________________

Before MAYER and PROST, Circuit Judges and LINARES, District Judge

. ∗

PER CURIAM.

Booker T. McNeill appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims, which affirmed the Board of Vetera ns’ Appeals’ decision denying his claim for

service connection of post-traumati c stress disorder (“PTSD”). McNeill v. Nicholson

,

No. 05-1413 (Vet. App. Dec. 7, 2006). Bec ause we do not have authority to review “a

challenge to a law or regulatio n as applied to the facts of a particular case” absent a

constitutional issue, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), we dismiss his appeal.

∗ Honorable Jose L. Linares, District J udge, United States Dis trict Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.