alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Abraham BENAVIDES-CIRA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40792 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 17, 2017

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

James Scott Sullivan, Esq., Law Offices of J. Scott Sullivan, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira pleaded guilty to conspiracy to export a defense article without obtaining a license or written authorization and possession of a firearm with a removed, obliterated, or altered serial number; he was sentenced within the guidelines range to a total of 135 months of imprisonment. He now appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court clearly erred by refusing to grant him a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

Benavides-Cira’s notion that he was a minor or minimal participant because he was he was “merely a negotiator,” “middleman,” and “facilitator” in the criminal activity is unavailing. Benavides-Cira was actively involved in finding suppliers for the illicit firearms and' in the actual or attempted negotiations, delivery, and sale of eight firearms to undercover agents over a four-month period. As part of those negotiations, he communicated directly with undercover agents through five in-person meetings, telephone conversations, and text messages, and he was present for the sale and transfer of three firearms and the attempted sale of five firearms that preceded his arrest in this case.

Benavides-Cira had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was “substantially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity.” § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A)); *see United States v. Castro,*843 F.3d 608, 613 (5th Cir. 2016). The district court’s implicit conclusion that he failed to meet this burden is plausible in light of the record as a whole. *See United States v. Torres-Hernandez,*843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by denying Benavides-*348Cira’s request for a mitigating role adjustment. *See 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.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of National Auto Credit,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the
Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), do hereby represent, warrant and certify 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/ Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
--------------------------------------------
Name: Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
Title: Chief Financial Officer
(principal accounting and financial officer)

Date:  December 12, 2005

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 National Auto Credit, Inc. and
will be retained by National Auto Credit, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
#### Hector Miranda ORTIZ Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States of America Respondent Hector Miranda Ortiz Petitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States of America Respondent

No. 16-2352, No. 16-3779

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 4, 2017

Filed: August 9, 2017

*468Megan Anne Lantz, Barten Law Office, Ames, IA, for Petitioner

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Jeffery R. Leist, Carl H. McIntyre, Sarah Pergolizzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated matters, Salvadoran citizen Hector Miranda Ortiz petitions for review of (1) an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge, which denied him withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) (No. 16-2352); and (2) an order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen proceedings (No. 16-3779).

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision to deny withholding of removal. Ortiz did not show that the harm he suffered was on account of a protected ground or establish that his proposed social group was distinctly perceived by the Salvadoran society. See Malonga v. Holder, 621 F.3d 757, 766 (8th Cir. 2010) (applicant bears burden of providing some evidence that motivation of persecutor’s actions was, at least in part, on account of protected ground); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 220-22 (BIA 2014) (applicant did not establish, that “former members of the Mara 18 gang in El Salvador who have renounced their gang membership” constituted particular social group; defined group lacked particularity because it was too diffuse, as well as too broad and subjective); accord Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2016).

We further determine that Ortiz’s CAT claim fails, as the record evidence does not compel a reasonable adjudicator to conclude that Ortiz would more likely than not face torture upon removal to El Salvador. See Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546, 554-56 (8th Cir. 2008). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. See Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for motion to reopen).

The petitions for review are denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

DAROLD RUDOLPH LIGHTBURN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

No. 2D 20 2 3

- 1 891

May 2 4 , 20 2 4

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christine A.

Marlewski , Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green , Assistant

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT

, VILLANTI, and ROTHSTEIN

- YOUAKIM

, JJ.

, Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaquentez MYERS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-11103 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 28, 2017

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

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jaquentez Myers appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He contends that the district court committed plain error by increasing his sentence based on two prior Texas convictions for burglary of a habitation that were deemed “crimes of violence” under the applicable 2014 edition of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

*277Myers contends that Texas definition of burglary of a habitation is broader than the generic definition of burglary of a dwelling, and that the court could not use the modified categorical approach because the statute is not divisible. The Texas statute is divisible. *See United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2016) (addressing the effect of *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016)), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017). The relevant court documents, properly consulted under the modified categorical approach, show that Myers was convicted of violating Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1), which matches sufficiently the generic definition of burglary of a dwelling. *See United States v. Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 175-79 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the judgment is 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.
Exhibit 10.7


CASS INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
Summary Profit Sharing Program


The purpose of the profit sharing program is to facilitate the Company’s continued growth and success by providing rewards that are commensurate with achievement, thereby creating an incentive for superior performance and improved results for shareholders. All employees of Cass Information Systems are eligible to participate in the program, unless specifically excluded due to their employment category, such as temporary staff or if their performance is not meeting the minimum expectations.


The amount of the profit sharing fund available for distribution is set by the Board of Directors and is currently set at 22.5% of the company’s net income after taxes for the period of distribution.


Distributions are not guaranteed and the company may distribute profit sharing benefits on any schedule and in any manner that it deems appropriate. Currently, distributions are made on a semi-annual basis.


Allocations to employee groups eligible to participate are divided into exempt and non-exempt pools based on the salaries of each group over the corresponding period. The non-exempt pool is distributed to each eligible employee based on a factor of salary and performance score. The exempt pool is distributed to all exempt employees considering factors such as position, salary grade and individual performance. Specific allocations are made out of the exempt pool to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and other executive officers, including named executive officers (NEOs) as follows:


CEO – The CEO receives a percentage of the total profit sharing pool based on the change in net income after taxes (NIAT) from the prior year and is set to provide a target percentage of base salary at target performance of 45%. The amount paid to the CEO can range from 0% up to a maximum of 70% of base pay.


Executive Officers – A percentage of the total profit sharing pool is provided for distribution to other executive officers based on the change in NIAT from the prior year and is set to provide a target percentage of base salaries at target performance of 40%. The total funds provided for distribution to the executive officers can range from 0% up to a maximum of 50% of base pay. The amount of funds in this pool is distributed to each individual executive officer by the CEO based on a subjective evaluation considering internal equity and other individual factors related to performance.


Individual distributions to exempt employees, other than the CEO and executive officers, as a percent of salary are subject to set limits based on each individual’s pay grade and any payment in excess of these percentages shall require the review and approval of the President or Chief Operating Officer of each business unit and the CEO. Payments in excess of the set limits for the CEO and executive officers need approval from the Board of Director’s Compensation Committee.


69
Edward KNAPP, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2906

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Exhibit 32.2

iDNA, INC.CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr., Chief Financial 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, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), do hereby represent, warrant and certify 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/ Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.                                 |  |  |   |
| Name: Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.Title: Chief Financial Officer(principal accounting and financial officer)                                                                                                                     |  |  |   |
| Date: June 12, 2007                                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

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.

34

----
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-160954) of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph relating toMDU Communication International, Inc.’s ability to continue as a going concern, dated December 21, 2012 relating to ouraudit of the consolidated financial statements of MDU Communications International, Inc. as of September 30, 2012 and 2011and for the years then ended, which report appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30,2012.

 

/s/ CohnReznick LLP

Roseland, New Jersey

December 21, 2012
Exhibit 31.2Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.I, Douglas H. Kelsall, certify that:1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of eCollege.com;2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision , to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
[Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.]c)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:a)
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 15, 2004/s/ Douglas H. KelsallDouglas H. KelsallChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.5

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  annual  report  of  SAMESSA  HOLDING  CORP.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  March 31,  2003,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Andrew I. Telsey,
the Chief  Executive  Officer and the Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), 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.



Dated:  August 12, 2003                       s/Andrew I. Telsey
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
















                                                                              27
**Exhibit 31.02****CERTIFICATION**I, Lewis R. Belote, III, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Move, 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: October 18, 2006      /s/ LEWIS R. BELOTE, III   Lewis R. Belote, III
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6549 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6549

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Administrator of 
the Federal Aviation Administration to adjust certain requirements with 
  respect to sovereignty and use of airspace, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2023

Ms. Eshoo (for herself, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Panetta, and Mr. 
   Sherman) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Administrator of 
the Federal Aviation Administration to adjust certain requirements with 
  respect to sovereignty and use of airspace, 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 ``Fairness in Airspace Includes 
Residents Act'' or the ``F-AIR Act''.

SEC. 2. SOVEREIGNTY AND USE OF AIRSPACE.

    (a) In General.--Section 40103(b)(1) of title 49, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(1)(A) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace 
and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to 
ensure--
            ``(i) as a primary priority, the safety of aircraft; and
            ``(ii) as secondary co-equal priorities--
                    ``(I) the efficient use of airspace; and
                    ``(II) the minimization of the impact of aviation 
                noise, and other health impacts, on residents and 
                communities, and other impacts of the use of airspace 
                on the environment.
    ``(B) The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when 
required in the public interest.''.
    (b) Updates to FAA Priorities.--Not later than 12 months after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
Aviation Administration shall--
            (1) review the regulations, policies, procedures, and 
        processes of the Administration and modify them as necessary to 
        reflect the priorities in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 
        40103(b)(1)(A) of title 49, United States Code, as added by 
        subsection (a); and
            (2) update the mission statement of the Administration to 
        reflect such priorities.
                                 <all>
```