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

No. 16-4478

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 26, 2017

Decided: August 17, 2017

*719Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Andrew W. Grindrod, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Christopher Catizone, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Hamilton, Jr., pled guilty without a plea agreement to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in •violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012). He was sentenced to a term of 32 months’ imprisonment. Hamilton alleges on appeal that the district court procedurally erred by incorrectly calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. We affirm.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. *Id.*at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. In determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers whether, among other things, the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range. *Id.*at 49-51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Hamilton asserts that the district court miscalculated his Guidelines range by erroneously finding that his prior conviction in Virginia for unlawful wounding qualified as a crime of violence, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), 4B1.2 (2015), and enhancing his base offense level accordingly.

Hamilton’s claim is unavailing. The Supreme Court recently held in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), that the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 892, 895, 897. The Court explained that, unlike the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause, which was invalidated in *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), “§ 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void for vagueness.” *Id.*at 895, 897. Hamilton’s Virginia conviction for unlawful wounding remains a crime of violence under the residual clause post-Rec/cfes, notwithstanding that the Government conceded in the district court that the residual clause was void for vagueness. *See United States v. Lee,*855 F.3d 244, 247 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding that Virginia conviction for unlawful wounding qualified as a crime of violence under the career offender guideline’s residual clause).

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
#### In the Matter of the Voluntary Dissolution of The Vertical Tube Boiler Co.

*(New York Superior Court, General Term,*

*Filed May 4, 1891.)*

Corporations—Receiver.

An order appointing a receiver of a corporation on its voluntary dissolution will not be amended so as to permit the entry of judgment in actions previously commenced against it and in which attachments were issued, where the receiver has not been made a party defendant or substituted for the company in such actions.

Appeal from order denying motion of creditors who had filed a petition for the modification of the order of injunction appointing the receiver.

*Bullard &*Shannon, for app’lt; *J. C. O'Conor, Jr.,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

Before the appointment of the receiver, the petitioning creditors had begun actions in the city court, and had obtained orders of attachment which had been levied upon property of the corporation. After the appointment of the receiver these petitioning creditors presented their petition that the order-*529of injunction against creditors be modified so as to allow the petitioners to enter judgment and issue executions in the actions in the city court.

The motion was denied on the ground that the receiver had not been made a party defendant or substituted for the company as defendants in those actions.

It clearly would not have been proper to allow the creditor to proceed *ex*parte, and without such protection to the assets as the presence of the receiver would furnish. Under all circumstances, if the attachments were valid, there was a lien upon the property levied upon which would be preserved, and, as far as proper, satisfied in the administration of the assets.

The appellants’ counsel insists that at least the injunction order should have been modified so as to allow the entry of judgment and the issuing of execution, unless the receiver should within ten days apply to be made a party defendant to the action, and such a modification was not asked of the court below. There is no reason for granting, at least at this time. If hereafter there is any improper delay on the part of the receiver, it will be in time to have due protection from the delay.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

Mo Ad am, J., concurs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,334,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,414,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   276,000
<INVENTORY>                                    618,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,163,000
<PP&E>                                       2,169,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 513,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,999,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,472,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,999,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,437,000
<CGS>                                        3,221,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,653,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             151,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                633,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   278,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            355,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 35,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   320,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2


                      Pacific WebWorks, Inc.


                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

      I, Thomas R. Eldredge, Chief Financial Officer of Pacific WebWorks, Inc.
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

      (1)   the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
            December 31, 2002, 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.


Date: March 24, 2003

                           /s/ Thomas R. Eldredge
                           _________________________________
                           Thomas R. Eldredge
                           Chief Financial Officer
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.12
















CONSENT OF FRANÇOIS HUOT







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I, François Huot, participated in the preparation of a technical report entitled “Technical Report and Recommendations, 2011 Exploration Program, Payne Bay Property, Québec, Virginia Mines Inc. and Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd.” completed in May 2012 (the “Report”) concerning mineralized material in the Baie Payne property for the Company. Portions of the report are summarized under headings “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.7.4 Geological Setting; 3.7.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.7.6 Mineralization” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,










	
	/s/  François Huot


	Name:  François Huot, Ph.D., P.Geo.



















May 14, 2012
ex10.32

 

 Exhibit 10.32
 

 

 
 

 

 

 December 15, 2011
 

 

 Roger Tichenor, CEO
 Varca Ventures, Inc
 1630 Ringling Blvd., 
 Sarasota, Florida 34236
 

 

 Dear Roger:
 

 New Zeal Inc. is prepared to provide Varca Ventures, Inc. with a number of requisite services to achieve the highest possible and appropriate market capitalization through its strategic, technological and intellectual services. 
 

 New Zeal Inc. Approach
 

 New Zeal Inc. sees a tremendous opportunity in the restoration and establishment of the financial brand of Varca Ventures, Inc.
 as a company and as a going concern. New Zeal Inc. will assist Varca Ventures, Inc. in achieving this through its own select team of developers, designers, writers and coders to craft the story and the history.  
 

 New Zeal Inc. will commence a twelve (12) month corporate awareness campaign. During that time we will deliver the following:
 

 ·
 Create a Corporate Fact Sheet/Corporate Executive Summary.
 ·
 Commission an independent, third party Research Report.
 ·
 Manage and update online financial portal information aka: Yahoo, Bloomberg, Hoovers.
 ·
 Introduce the company to Market Participants, including Market Makers and Investment Bankers.
  
 


 
 

 

 New Zeal Inc. will also undertake the following during the twelve (12) month period:
 

 ·
 Create a Database of Journalists covering Mining & Mineral Exploration.
 ·
 If required, set up Analyst/Investor Conference Calls.
 ·
 Monitor shareholder base activity through weekly DTC sheets provided by Varca Ventures, Inc.
 ·
 Develop introductions to direct buy-side/sell-side research analysts who cover the client’s industry.
 ·
 Deliver PDF’s of Corporate Report and Executive Summaries.
 

 Cost
 

 ·
 New Zeal shall be issued 700,000 restricted shares of common stock of Varca Ventures Inc. as consideration for its services under this agreement.
 

 ·
 All pre-approved out of pocket expenses will be billed at cost directly to Varca Ventures, Inc.
 

 

 	 	
	 For Consultant:
	 For Company:

	  
	  

	 New Zeal Inc.
	 Varca Ventures, Inc.

	  
	  

	  
	  

	 /s/ George Demakos
	 /s/ Roger Tichenor

	 George Demakos
	 Roger Tichenor
#### KLINKENBORG AERIAL SPRAYING AND SEEDING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROTORCRAFT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; Rotorcraft Holdings, LLC; Select Aviation Services, Inc.; Select Aviation Holdings, LLC; Gary Fox, individually; Select Turbine Components, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 15-35008

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 3, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed May 04, 2017

G. Trenton Hooper, Jupiter Law Group, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Quentin M. Rhoades, Attorney, Nicole L. Siefert, Rhoades, Siefert *&*Erickson, PLLC, Missoula, MT, for Defendants-Appellants

Before: KOZINSKI and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable John R, Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

As a general rule, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)’s automatic stay only protects the debtor and not corporate affiliates. *Chugach Timber Corp. v. N. Stevedoring & Handling Corp. (In re Chugach Forest Prods., Inc.),*23 F.3d 241, 246 (9th Cir. 1994). Appellants Rotorcraft Development, Rotorcraft Holdings LLC, Select Aviation Services Inc., Select Aviation Holdings LLC, and Gary Fox (collectively, “Rotorcraft entities”) are corporate affiliates of now-bankrupt Select Turbine Components, Inc., and, therefore, the stay does not automatically protect the Rotorcraft entities.

The Rotorcraft entities nevertheless contend that the automatic stay extends to Klinkenborg’s alter-ego claims because they are property of the estate. We have construed such contentions as assertions that “unusual circumstances” warrant departure from the “general rule” articulated above. *See In re Chugach Forest Prods.,*23 F.3d at 246; *O’Malley Lumber Co. v. Lockard (In re Lockard),*884 F.2d 1171, 1179-78 (9th Cir. 1989). We have never adopted the “unusual circumstances” exception in the Ninth Circuit and we decline to do so here. *See In re Chugach Forest Prods.,*23 F.3d at 246-47. Further, even if we were to adopt “unusual circumstances” exception, the exception requires the bankruptcy court to extend the automatic stay *541using its equity jurisdiction “ ‘after hearing and the establishment of unusual need to take this action to protect the administration of the bankruptcy estate.’” *Solidus Networks, Inc. v. Excel Innovations, Inc. (In re Excel Innovations, Inc.),*502 F.3d 1086, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting *In re Chugach Forest Prods.,*23 F.3d at 247 n.6). Here, the bankruptcy court has not used its equity jurisdiction to extend the automatic stay to the Rotorcraft entities. Finally, even if the bankruptcy court were not required to apply its equity jurisdiction, Klinkenborg’s alter-ego claim pled “[u]pon information and belief,” does not support a finding of “unusual circumstances” to automatically extend the protection of § 362(a).

AFFIRMED

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 21****SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**     **Jurisdiction of****Subsidiary** **Incorporation/Organization** American Factoring, Inc. Nevada   Limited Too Store Planning, Inc. Ohio   Limited Too Purchasing, Inc. Ohio   Limited Too Catalog Production, Inc. Ohio   Limited Too Direct, LLC Ohio   Limited Too Creative Design, Inc. Ohio   LT Holding, Inc. Ohio   LT Import Corp. Ohio   Floret, LLC Ohio   Mish Mash, LLC Ohio   Too Brands Investment, LLC Ohio   Too G.C., LLC Ohio   Too Brands, Inc. Ohio   Too Retail & Sales Puerto Rico, Inc. Puerto Rico   Too Sourcing Hong Kong Limited Hong Kong   Too Import, LLP Ohio   G Too, LLC Ohio   Justice Stores, LLC Ohio
75
Exhibit 12.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Shabtai Adlersberg, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of AudioCodes Ltd.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.

The companys other certifying officers 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 company 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 company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the company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; and

c.

Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a.

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal controls.







Date:  June 30, 2004





/s/ SHABTAI ADLERSBERG

Shabtai Adlersberg

Chief Executive Officer





| |  | 
| |  |
<PAGE>
 
 
Exhibit 99.2  Press Release



PRESS RELEASE
August 31, 1998               For further information contact:
                              David M. Bradley
                              Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
                              North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                              825 Central Avenue
                              Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                              515-576-7531



               NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. DECLARES DIVIDEND

David M. Bradley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of North
Central Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") announced on August 28, 1998 that the
Company declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.08 per share on the
Company's common stock for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 1998.  The
dividend will be payable to all stockholders of record as of September 15, 1998
and will be paid on October 5, 1998.

The Company's common stock trades on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol
"FFFD".  The Company's wholly owned subsidiary, First Federal Savings Bank of
Iowa, is a federally chartered savings bank headquartered in Fort Dodge, Iowa.
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, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period April 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009, 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                                                                                       
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
|Name:                 |  | Kenneth A. Shewer                                                                                                                     
|Title:                |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer) Kenmar Preferred Investments Corp., Managing Owner of Futures Strategic Trust

Date: August 11, 2009
EXHIBIT
3.2.1




AMENDMENT


TO


BYLAWS


OF


CYBERDEFENDER
CORPORATION




The following paragraph shall replace
in its entirety Article III, Section 2 of the corporation’s bylaws:





“The
authorized number of Directors shall be no less than three and no more than five
until changed by a duly adopted amendment to the Articles of Incorporation or by
an amendment to these Bylaws adopted by the vote or written consent of a
majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote.  The Board, by
resolution by vote of a majority of the then authorized number of Directors, may
increase or decrease the number of Directors within the parameters set forth
herein.  Until changed by the Board, the number of Directors shall be
three.”






Effective
      Date:  October 30, 2006
            By:
            /s/
      Igor BarashIgor
      Barash
              Secretary
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report On Form 10-K of Datone, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ending December 31, 2008, I, Joseph J Passalaqua, Chief
Financial Officer/ of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.           Such
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:  January
26 , 2010




DATONE,
INC.




By:
/s/  Joseph  J  Passalaqua


Joseph
J Passalaqua