alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mantrel Deshun YOUNG, originally named as Montrell Deshun Young Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3669

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 5, 2017

Filed: November 3, 2017

*595Anne E. Gardner, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jeffrey M. Rosenzweig, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellant

Mantrel Deshun Young, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Mantrel Young challenges the 120 month sentence the district court1 imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B),. 846. In particular, Young argues his 2004 conviction for using a communication device to facilitate a drug transaction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) does not qualify as a “controlled substance offense” for purposes of the career offender enhancement, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b).

Not all § 843(b) offenses qualify as “controlled substance offenses,” see United States v. Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d 798, 805 (5th Cir. 2009). A § 843(b) offense is a “controlled substance offense” “if the offense of conviction established that the underlying offense (the offense committed, caused, or facilitated) was a controlled substance offense,” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.l (2016) (quotation omitted). We conclude that it was not plain error when the district court determined that Young’s 2004 conviction did so qualify, particularly because Young’s attorney only generally objected to that determination and conceded that his offense did qualify under current case law. See U.S. v. Grimes, 702 F.3d 460, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2012) (applying plain error review); Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d at 800-01 (reviewing for plain error because defendant did not specifically argue at sentencing that government failed to produce sufficient evidence that prior § 843(b) conviction constituted drug trafficking offense).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable J, Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT - 32.1

MOSSIMO, INC.

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 Quarterly Report of Mossimo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mossimo Giannulli,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify in accordance with
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

          (1)  The Report to which this certification is attached as Exhibit -
               32.1 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, results of
               operations, and cash flows of the Company.


/s/ Mossimo Giannulli
---------------------
    Mossimo Giannulli
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
    August 13, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated financial statements for the twelve weeks ended
June 17, 1997 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>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-17-1997
<CASH>                                          46,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     65,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               307,600
<PP&E>                                       1,271,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 583,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,163,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          196,400
<BONDS>                                          1,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     589,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,163,100
<SALES>                                        377,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               377,400
<CGS>                                          214,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  214,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Footnote to electronic filing only: as presented, 
data is rounded to the nearest $100 except for per 
share data.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1**Certifications Pursuant to 17 CFR Section 240.13a-14**I, Richard M. Osborne certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of John D. Oil and Gas Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation and;  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingand; 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information and;  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.Date: March 28, 2008By: /s/ Richard M. Osborne
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of Futures
Strategic Trust (the Trust), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer                                         
|Kenneth A. Shewer Co-Chief Executive Officer November 14, 2005
#### Mary McGahan, Respondent, *v.*St. Saviors R. C. Church, Appellant.

Argued April 20, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*826
      *Julius S. Christensen, James J. McLoughlin*and *Thomas F. Harrigan*for appellant.

*Harry E. Kreindler*and *Dora Aberlin*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2377

In re: CARLOS ALEXANDER SANDERS,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(No. 5:12-cr-00158-FL-1; 5:13-cv-00873-FL)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Alexander Sanders, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Alexander Sanders petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in 

ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order 

from this court directing the district court to act. We find 

the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district 

court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and deny the mandamus petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 31.1

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Dawn G. Lepore, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of drugstore.com, inc.; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Dawn G. LeporeDawn G. LeporeChief Executive Officer and President


May 2, 2011
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

____________________________________________________________________________________

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of USA Truck, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Clifton R. Beckham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

 

| Date:  | May 5, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Clifton R. Beckham                  |   |
|--------|-------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |        |   | **Clifton R. Beckham**                  |   |
|   |        |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to USA Truck, Inc. and will be retained by USA Truck, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6606 

To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating to the statement 

of policy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2023 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating 

to the statement of policy. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY. 

4 Section 1752(2) of the Export Control Reform Act 

5 of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4811(2)) is amended by adding at the 

6 end the following: 

7 ‘‘(H) To protect the trade secrets of the 

8 United States, its people, and its industrial 

9 base either related to items subject to control 

10 by the Secretary pursuant to this part or when 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6606 IH

1 the subject of economic espionage as described 

2 in section 1831 of title 18, United States 

3 Code.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### BSL INVESTMENTS, II, LLC, f.k.a. Fresh Frozen Foods, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRESH FROZEN FOODS, INC., f.k.a. FFF Acquisition Sub, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-14255 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 1, 2017)

Adeyemi 0. Adenrele, Barnes & Thorn-burg, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Thomas Joseph Gallo, John W. Mills, Kara Cleary, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant

Mark Allen Nadeau, Cole Schlabach, DLA Piper LLP (US), Phoenix, AZ, Christopher Grey Campbell, James Michael Ru-sert, DLA Piper LLP (US), Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee

Michael James King, Greenberg Trau-rig, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for U.S. Bank National Association

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is a contract dispute arising from an escrow agreement between BSL Investments and Fresh Frozen Foods. BSL filed a complaint in district court seeking a declaratory judgment that, among other things, Fresh Frozen Foods is not entitled to escrow funds governed by the agreement. The district court granted summary judgment to Fresh Frozen Foods. The court found that Fresh Frozen Foods requested access to the escrow funds as indemnification for damages it suffered from dealings with BSL; BSL failed to timely dispute the request; and under the plain language of the escrow agreement, BSL’s failure waived BSL’s right to contest the request. BSL appeals the district court’s summary judgment decision.

After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm substantially for reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough opinion. *See BSL Investments, II, LLC v. Fresh Frozen Foods, Inc.,*No. 1:15-cv-02136 (N.D. Ga. June 16, 2016).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6261 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6261

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2024

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Comptroller General to conduct a review on the impact of 
        crime on public building usage, 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 ``Impact of Crime on Public Building 
Usage Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON IMPACT OF CRIME ON PUBLIC BUILDING USAGE.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review and 
submit to Congress a report outlining--
            (1) the effects of increased crime rates and safety 
        concerns, including use of fentanyl and other drugs and 
        homelessness, in urban areas on building usage for in-person 
        work at Federal buildings;
            (2) how usage of different commuting modes of 
        transportation to Federal buildings are affected by increased 
        crime rates;
            (3) the effects of low office utilization rates on safety 
        around Federal buildings;
            (4) any agency exceptions given to the policy set forth in 
        the memorandum of the Office of Management and Budget titled 
        ``Measuring, Monitoring, and Improving Organizational Health 
        and Organizational Performance in the Context of Evolving 
        Agency Work Environments'' and issued on April 13, 2023, due to 
        unsafe commuting conditions; and
            (5) any costs associated with safety issues impacting 
        Federal building.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON COSTS OF CRIME AROUND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
inspector general of the General Services Administration shall submit 
to Congress a report on the impacts on and costs associated with 
building operations related to crime and public safety in and around 
Federal buildings.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Andrew Quonah JONES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70018

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 2, 2017

Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

Christina P. Greer, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Andrew Quonah Jones, a native and citizen of Liberia, and a citizen of The Netherlands, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and reopen. *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’s motion to reconsider as untimely, where he filed it more than 30 days after the final order of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, where the evidence, including evidence regarding Jones’s efforts to marry, was not previously unavailable and did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief. *See*8 U.S.C. *400§ 1229a(C)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); *Bhasin v. Gonzales,*423 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (new evidence in support of a motion to reopen must not have been available at the time of the hearing).

Contrary to Jones’s contentions, the BIA did not ignore or improperly analyze his contentions regarding his conviction for solicitation to possess marijuana for sale. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010); *Olivas-Motta v. Holder,*716 F.3d 1199, 1200 (9th Cir. 2013) (the agency is confined to the record of conviction in determining whether an alien has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Jones’s motion to the extent it concerns the same hardship grounds as his original application for cancellation of removal. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 600-01 (9th Cir. 2006) (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction over a motion to reopen where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided on the merits).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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