alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 4022** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. LEROY AUGUSTUS LANE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:06

- cr - 00992

- GRA

- 1 )

Submitted : April 19, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Vacated and rem anded by un published per curiam opinion
. Tillman J. Breckenridge, Alison R. W. Toepp, Margaret Sander, REED SMITH LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant . William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Green ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Leroy Augustus Lane appeals from the 240

- month sentence imposed at his resentencing hearing, following vacation of his sentence pursuant t o his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion . On appeal, Lane asserts that the district court miscalculated his Sentencing Guidelines range. Specifically, he states that the presentence report (“PSR”) erroneously applied U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Man ual § 4B1.1 (2010). The Government concedes error on appeal. Accordingly, we vacate Lane’s sentence and remand for further proceedings. The PSR applied USSG § 4B1.1 and assigned Lane a base offense level of 37, the base offense level for a career offende r subject to a statutory maximum life sentence. However, the base offense level for a career offender subject to a statutory maximum sentence of twenty to less than twenty

- five
years * is only 32. See USSG § 4B1.1(b)(3). Accordingly, Lane’s advisory Guid elines range (of 240 months) was miscalculated , and taking into account the statutory maximum, the parties agree that his range should have instead been 210

- 240 months. Because the parties are in agreement that the error should be corrected ,
we vacate Lan e’s sente nce and remand for resentencing
.

* At re sentencing , it was undisputed that Lane’s statuto ry maximum sentence was twenty years
.3 On remand, Lane should be appointed a different attorney from the one who represented him at his prior two sentencing hearings. In addition, his case should be reassigned to a different district court judge. We d ispense 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,387
<SECURITIES>                                     4,199
<RECEIVABLES>                                      318
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,159
<PP&E>                                           3,450
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,823
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,480
<SALES>                                          3,171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,819
<CGS>                                              607
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,148
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,264)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,264)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.95)
        

</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2009
(the Report), I, Dan Amadori, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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.

|Date: February 25, 2011 | /s/ Dan Amadori               | 
|----------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|                        | Dan Amadori                   | 
|                        | Chief Financial Officer       | 
|                        | (Principal financial officer) | 

---
#### Hicks v. The Farmers’ Ins. Co.

1. Fire Insuran.ee: condition against incumbrance: violation. A condition in a fire-insurance policy, issued to a firm, that the property should not afterwards be in any manner incumbered, was violated by the execution of a mortgage by one of the partners on his undivided one-third interest in the property, and by a judgment against him which became a lien on his said interest.

*Appeal from, Monroe Cvreuit Court.*

Monday, March 7.

Action upon a policy of insurance. A demurrer to the defendant’s answer to the petition was overruled. Plaintiff standing on his demurrer, judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

*Gleason de Haskell*and *H. L.*Hashiell, for appellant.

*Frank O.*Hormel, for appellee.

Beck, J.

The policy in suit contains a condition that it shall become void “ if the property insured be sold, or any change tahe place in the title thereof, or if the property or any part thereof, hereafter in any manner whatever incumbered.” The answer alleges that plaintiff, after the execution of the policy, and before the fire, incumbered the property insured by executing on his interest therein, which was one-third, a mortgage, etc., and that it was incumbered during the same time by a judgment against plaintiff, which became and has remained a lien on the property. It is shown by the pleadings that the policy was issued to a firm of which plaintiff is a partner, and that the policy, after the loss, was assigned to him. The plaintiff demurs to the answer, on the ground that the mortgage and judgment, having been executed and rendered while plaintiff was one *120of the partners to whom the policy was issued, do not constitute a breach of the condition of the policy. The property insured was an office building and furniture therein. The .answer alleges that plaintiff held a one-third interest therein, and that it was incumbered by the mortgage and judgment. Surely, under these allegations, defendant would be permitted to show both a mortgage and judgment incumbrance upon plaintiff ’s interest in the property. And that the mortgage and judgment, as they are set out in the answer, would incumber plaintiff ’s interest in the property, there can be no doubt. The petition alleges that plaintiff owned one-third of the property, and that the mortgage was executed upon that interest, and the judgment was rendered while he owned it. That liens were created as against the realty is very plain. Their extent or the manner of their enforcement need not be a subject of inquiry.

The case, in our opinion, was rightly decided by the court below.

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARIA CYNTHIA BUSTAMANTE,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00037-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20140C06099)

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due to be filed on June 12, 2018 and none has been filed. Jason 

Mestas, Court Reporter for County Criminal Court No. 4 of El Paso County, advised the Court on 

June 15, 2018 and June 26, 2018 that he has not received a written request/designation for the 

record from Appellant and Appellant has not made financial arrangements for the preparation of 

the reporter’s record. It is unclear from the record whether Appellant is indigent for purposes of 

appeal because the trial court granted Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel, but 

Appellant is currently represented by retained counsel.

 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the trial court conduct a hearing to determine whether

Appellant wishes to continue the appeal. If Appellant wishes to continue with the appeal, the trial 

court must determine whether Appellant is able to afford to pay for the reporter’s record. The trial 

court shall forward its findings to the County Clerk of El Paso County, Texas, on or before July 

16, 2018. The County Clerk shall prepare and forward a supplemental clerk’s record containing 

the trial court’s findings and forward the same to this Court on or before July 26, 2018. Further, 

the trial court’s reporter shall prepare, certify, and file the record of the trial court proceedings with 

this Court on or before July 26, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of June, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
**MUZAK HOLDINGS LLC**

**Section 302 Certifications**

 

**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification of the President**

 

I, Lon E. Otremba, President, of Muzak Holdings LLC certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Muzak Holdings LLC; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 includedin 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(s) and I are responsible for establishingand 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 materialinformation 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand 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; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) Allsignificant 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 financialinformation; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 30, 2004 

/s/ Lon E. Otremba 

Name: Lon E. Otremba 

Title: President
AMENDMENT OF FINANCIAL REGULATION PURSUANT TO 42 

Pa.C.S. § 3502(c)

204 Pa. Code Ch. 207 (Transmitting Remittances)

§ 207.3. Online Payment Convenience Fee--Adjustment of Fines, Costs, Fees, and 

Other Remittances.

(a) Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 3502(c)(3), the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania 

hereby adjusts the level of fines, costs, fees, and other remittances by assessing a nonrefundable [$2.75] 2.75 percent (%) convenience fee for online credit/debit card payments 

of court costs, fines, fees, and restitution associated with pre-existing cases, cases initiated 

within the Magisterial District Judge, Common Pleas, and Appellate Court Case 

Management Systems of the Pennsylvania Courts, or filings submitted via the 

Guardianship Tracking System. The 2.75 % convenience fee shall also be assessed on 

any other online credit/debit card payments initiated through the AOPC’s UJS 

Portal. Said amount shall be paid through a contracted financial intermediary and shall be 

added at the time of the payment.

(b) This regulation shall become effective [January 1, 2010] April 1, 2024, and shall 

apply to all online credit/debit card payments initiated through the AOPC's UJS Portal 

[made on or after this date on pre-existing cases, cases initiated within the Magisterial 

District Judge, Common Pleas, and Appellate Court Case Management Systems of 

the Pennsylvania Courts, or filings submitted via the Guardianship Tracking 

System].
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2454

_____________________________

THERALL AUTHUR WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

January 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jasmine Quintera Russell, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; and Therall 

Williams, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**





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 filing of Amendment No.
      2 to
      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005
      (the “Report”) by Apex Capital Group, Inc. (the “Registrant”), I, Norbert L.
      LeBoeuf, hereby certify that:





1.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Registrant.





Dated:
      October 26 ,
      2006


By:
            /s/
              Norbert L. LeBoeufName:Norbert
                L. LeBoeufTitle:Chief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.35

 

Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation

 

KEMET Corporation (the “Company”) compensates each member of its Board of Directors (the “Board”) who is not an employee of the Company or its subsidiaries. As of July 26, 2011, the compensation program for the Board is as follows.  The annual retainer for the Chairman of the Board is $65,000 per year plus an annual grant of 6,667 restricted stock units (as defined in the Company’s 2011 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan).  (The cash portion of the annual retainer is payable in four quarterly payments of $16,250 each.)  The annual retainer for each director (other than the Chairman of the Board and any director that is employed by the Company) is $40,000 per year plus an annual grant of 6,667 restricted stock units.  (The cash portion of the annual retainer is payable in four quarterly payments of $10,000 each.)  The Chairperson of the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $12,500, and each member of that Committee receives an annual retainer of $8,000.  The Chairperson of the Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $8,000, and each member of that Committee receives an annual retainer of $5,000.  The Chairperson of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an annual retainer of $7,000, and each member of that Committee receives an annual retainer of $4,000.  All directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attending meetings.  Each director (other than any director that is employed by the Company) receives as additional compensation a fee of $1,500 per meeting for personal attendance at each meeting of the Board and for personal attendance at each meeting of a Committee of the Board, and a fee of $750 for telephonic attendance at each meeting of the Board or a Committee of the Board.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the twenty four weeks ended September 14,
1999 included in this report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000  <F1>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-14-1999
<CASH>                                          30,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  229,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,700
<INVENTORY>                                     78,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               402,000
<PP&E>                                       1,444,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 687,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,630,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          289,000
<BONDS>                                        151,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                     651,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,630,800
<SALES>                                        919,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               919,000
<CGS>                                          508,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  508,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,200
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67
<FN>
<F1>Footnote to electronic filing only:  as presented,
data is rounded to the nearest $100 except for per
share data.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hermelindo SEGUNDO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41593 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 24, 2017

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

Hermelindo Segundo,.Pro Se

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hermelindo Segundo was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment, following his guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b). He contends the district court erred in applying the 16-level crime-of-violence enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of his sentencing, based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015 ed.).

Although *post-Booker,*the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 48-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. *Id.*at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Delgado-Martinez,*564 F.3d 750, 751-53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed *de novo\*its factual findings, only for clear error. *E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

In 2008, Segundo was convicted of burglary of a habitation, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a). Because § 30.02(a) is divisible, the court, under the modified categorical approach, may consider certain state documents. *See United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017).

These documents show Segundo was convicted under § 30.02(a)(1), which con*377stitutes generic burglary of a dwelling under the Guidelines. *Id.; United States v. Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 178-79 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the court did not err in applying the enhancement. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015 ed.); *Uribe,*838 F.3d at 671.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not Greatbe published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.