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

No. 16-41623 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 31, 2017

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Evan Gray Howze, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Abel Becerra was convicted of being found in the United States after a previous deportation and was sentenced above the guidelines range to 28 months of imprisonment. Becerra argues on appeal that his case should be remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of reforming the statement of reasons to match the district court’s oral justification *for*imposing his above-guidelines sentence. He contends that the district court orally imposed an upward variance at sentencing, but the statement of reasons reflects that the district court granted the Government’s motion to upwardly depart pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(2).

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 states, “After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.” The nature of the above-guidelines sentence orally imposed by the district court in this case is ambiguous. Accordingly, the district court’s reliance in the statement of reasons on § 5K2.0(a)(2) as the basis for departure cannot be characterized as a mere clerical error that can be reformed under Rule 36.

In response to the Government’s argument that the district court brally imposed a § 5K2.0 upward departure, rather than an upward variance, Becerra argues for the first time in his reply brief that the district court committed plain error in applying a § 5K2.0(a)(2) upward departure. However, we will not consider this argument because it is being raised for the first time in a reply brief. *See United States v. Aguirre-Villa,*460 F.3d 681, 683 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006). Although Becerra contends that *301his argument should be considered because it is being made in response to the Government’s “unexpected” argument that the district court was imposing an upward departure, the Government’s brief did not address the issue whether the application of such an upward departure was procedurally reasonable.

Accordingly, the district court’s 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1996
<CASH>                                       2,999,926
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       9,985,989
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               922,856
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,855,852
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       8,529,985
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         8,522,556
<LOANS>                                     80,794,023
<ALLOWANCE>                                    491,489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             106,372,653
<DEPOSITS>                                  66,817,428
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,174,219
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    38,895,444
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,514,438)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             106,372,653
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,946,638
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              995,782
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,942,420
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,760,123
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,760,123
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,182,297
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   30,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,654,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,585,024
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,585,024
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,012,052
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.58
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                    76,260
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               461,983
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      494
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              491,489
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        491,489
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' CAPITAL AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001005177
<NAME> ML JWH STRATEGIC ALLOCATION FUND L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                               27,199,222
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         89,045,084
<PP&E>                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             116,244,306
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                   2,763,059
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 113,481,247
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               116,244,306
<TRADING-REVENUE>                            6,396,621
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         1,169,560
<COMMISSIONS>                                2,632,107
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,934,074
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   4,934,074
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,934,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.72
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
23.2




Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Board
of Directors and Stockholders


Perficient,
Inc.:





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-100490, No. 333-116549, No. 333-117216, No. 333-123177, No. 333-129054, No.
333-138602, No. 333-142267, No. 333-145899, No. 333-147687, and No. 333-148978)
on Form S-3 and (No. 333-42626, No. 333-44854, No. 333-75666, No. 333-118839,
No. 333-130624, and No. 333-147730) on Form S-8of
Perficient, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) of our reports dated March 3,
2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of
December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders’ equity, and cash flows, for the year then ended, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K
of the Company.





Our
report with respect to the consolidated financial statements refers to the
Company’s adoption, effective January 1, 2006, of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based
Payment.





Our
report dated March 3, 2008, on the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, contains an explanatory paragraph
that states the Company acquired e tech solutions, Inc. (E Tech), Tier1
Innovation, LLC (Tier 1), BoldTech Systems, Inc. (BoldTech), and ePairs, Inc.
(ePairs) during 2007, and management excluded from its assessment of the
effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2007, E Tech, Tier 1, BoldTech, and ePairs’ internal control over
financial reporting associated with 25% and 10% of the Company’s total assets
and total revenues, respectively, as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007.  Our audit of internal control over financial reporting of
Perficient, Inc. as of December 31, 2007 also excluded an evaluation of the
internal control over financial reporting of E Tech, Tier 1, BoldTech, and
ePairs.











/s/ KPMG
LLP


St.
Louis, Missouri


March 3,
2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6451

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JESSIE GREEN, a/k/a Jesse Green, a/k/a Jessie

Tyrone Green,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-94-207, CA-95-4009-3-17)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie Green, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Act

of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 (Law. Co-op. Advance Sheet

June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Green, Nos. CR94-207; CA-95-4009-3-17 (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 1996). We deny Appellant's

motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

I, Matthew C. Flemming., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of HII Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HII Technologies, Inc.

Date: April 15, 2015

 
|  

By:

/s/ Matthew C. Flemming

 

Name:

Matthew C. Flemming

 

Title:

Chief Executive Officer

I, Acie Palmer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of HII Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HII Technologies, Inc.

Date: April 15, 2015

 

By:

/s/ Acie Palmer

 

Name:

Acie Palmer

 

Title:

Chief Financial Officer |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
GREENWAY, LLC. and G.H.M.D., LLC.,

Appellant s ,

v.

STEINHATCHEE ANCIENT
OAKS PROPERTY OWNER’S ASSOCIATION, INC. and TRI

COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,

Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTI L TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO S

. 1D 1 4

- 2928 & 1D14

- 4683

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 4, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County. Andrew J. Decker, III , Judg e

.

David Lawrence, Tallahassee and Guillermo M. Mancebo of the Mancebo Law Group, P.A., Miami

, for Appellant s

.

Joseph R. Fritz of Joseph R. Fritz, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee Steinhatchee Ancient Oaks Property Owner ’ s Association, Inc. and E. Dylan Rivers of Ausley & McMullen, Tallahassee, for Appellee Tri

- County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., BENTON, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Depomed, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Tammy L. Cameron, Interim Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
|   | Date:  May 3, 2010  |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/ Tammy L.  Cameron    |
|   | Tammy L. Cameron         |
|   | Vice President,  Finance |

 

----
Exhibit 10.1October 13, 2006Dear Lincoln:The Compensation Committee of Connetics has authorized management to provide you with up to$150,000 in supplemental relocation assistance. This supplemental relocation assistance will bepaid in monthly installments of $12,500 beginning on October 1, 2007, net of taxes, and will bereported as taxable income on your W-2.The monthly installments of $12,500 will cease immediately should your employment status withConnetics change for any reason, including (1) your voluntary reduction of hours toless-than-full-time status, and (2) any termination as a result of a change in control of Conneticsas that term is defined in your Change in Control Agreement. There will not be an acceleration ofpayments in connection with this supplemental relocation assistance under any circumstance.Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this supplemental relocation assistance.Very truly yours,/s/ Thomas G. WiggansThomas G. Wiggans
#### Rocklyn HODGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-6301

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2017

Decided: May 4, 2017

Rocklyn Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rocklyn Hodge, a former federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, in which he challenged his status as an armed career criminal based on *Johnson v. United States,*559 U.S. 133, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010), and *Descamps v. United States,*— U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013). While this appeal was pending, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Hodge’s authorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, in which he challenged his status as an armed career criminal based on *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). The district court also resentenced Hodge to 120 months’ imprisonment with credit for time served and directed the Bureau of Prisons to release Hodge from custody as expeditiously as possible. We have confirmed that Hodge has been released from custody.

Accordingly, we deny Hodge leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal as moot. *See United States v. Springer,*715 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Mootness is a jurisdictional question and thus may be raised *sua sponte*by a federal court at any stage of proceedings.”). 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 13.2

# 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 of AudioCodes Ltd. (the Company) on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nachum Falek, Vice President
and 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, to 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 result of operations of the Company.

| |  | Date: June 29, 2006/s/ Nachum Falek
Nachum FalekVice President and
Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
#### Henry Anthony WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; State of California Franchise Tax Board, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-56386

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Henry Anthony Williams, Pro Se

Robert Joel Branman, Esquire, Jonathan S. Cohen, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Thomas D. Coker, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Henry Anthony Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action relating to the Internal Revenue Service’s alleged denial of tax credit for alimony payments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA,*760 F.3d 1056, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint’s allegations were manifestly insubstantial. *See Franklin v. Murphy,*745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams leave to amend his complaint because he did not request leave to file an amended complaint and failed to sign the lodged amended complaint. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (providing that “an unsigned paper [must be stricken] unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention”); *Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,*975 F.2d 604, 607-10 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of review and holding that a party seeking amendment after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order must demonstrate good cause, the focus of which is the diligence of the moving party).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 8, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00625

- CR

EX PARTE Edward HOUSTON

Original Habeas Corp us Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On October 2 , 2015, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court has

determined that it lacks jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition. Accordingly, relator’s petition

is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a). The court’s

opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on October 8, 2015

.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle , Clerk

1 This proceed ing arises out of Cause No. 2014CR7827, styled The State of Texas v. Edward Houston , pending in

the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell presiding.