alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Glen Sebastian BURNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bernard WARNER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-35031

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 4, 2017 Seattle, Washington

Filed April 20, 2017

Jason Brett Saunders, Attorney, Law Offices of Gordon & Saunders, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Paul D. Weisser, Senior Counsel, AGWA — Office of the Washington Attorney General (Olympia), Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Glen Sebastian Burns appeals from the district court’s denial of habeas corpus on the ground that his confession was coerced and involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we can grant habeas relief to state prisoners only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). *See Williams v. Taylor,*529 U.S. 362, 404-05, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). The relevant state court decision under AEDPA review is the last reasoned state *486court decision. *Ylst v. Nunnemaker,*501 U.S. 797, 804-06, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991). Here, that decision is the Washington State Court of Appeals’s decision on direct review of Burns’s conviction.

We disagree with Burns’s contention that the state court unreasonably applied *Arizona v. Fulminante,*499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991). Unlike the suspect in *Fulminante,*Burns did not apparently confess in direct response to a credible threat of physical violence. *See id,*at 287-88, 111 S.Ct. 1246. In fact, Officer Haslett repeatedly reassured Burns that he would not harm Burns. A reasonable fact finder could conclude that Burns confessed after rationally and deliberately weighing competing alternatives in pursuit of his own goals, which were to destroy incriminating evidence and to join a lucrative criminal enterprise. We therefore conclude that the Washington State Court of Appeals reasonably .found that Burns’s confession was “the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.” *Schneckloth v. Bustamante,*412 U.S. 218, 225, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1074

MESITA L. LOVE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN E. POTTER, in his capacity as Postmaster

General,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-02-498)

Submitted: March 31, 2003 Decided: May 1, 2003

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mesita L. Love, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Christopher John

Burton, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mesita L. Love appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to Defendant in this action alleging employment

discrimination based on gender, race, disability, and retaliation.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Love v. Potter, No. CA-02-498 (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2003).

We 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
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 11.1




                      DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC.
                                        
            STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                   For the quarter ended September 30, 1996
                                        

<TABLE>
<S>                                                               <C>
        Net loss                                                  $      (677,000)
                                                                  ===============
                                        
        Weighted average common and                             
                common equivalent shares outstanding                    3,921,268
                                                                  ===============
                                        
        Net loss per common and common                          
                equivalent shares                                 $         (0.17)
                                                                  ===============

</TABLE>






                                   Page 22
#### TEXAS AND PACIFIC R’Y CO. VS. DYER.

Appeal from Palo Pinto county.

Where after judgment in a justice’s court an appeal bond was filed, but the justice disregarding the same issued execution and failed to send up the transcript; and the defendant sued out a writ of *certiorari*to bring up the transcript to the county eourt; it was error in the latter court to dismiss the writ for want of sufficient cause.

The jurisdiction of the county court haying attached by the filing of the appeal bond, the case should have been docketed and tried *de novo.*

Opinion by

White, P. J.
#### The East New York and Jamaica Railroad Company, Respondent, *v.*James H. Elmore, Appellant.

(Argued May 30, 1872;

decided June 20, 1872.)

*Samuel Hand*for the appellant.

*John E. Pa/rsons*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm. No opinion.

Judgment affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TONNY PRESIDENT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-768

[June 17, 2015]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara McCarthy, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 01-018316CF10A.

Tonny President, Malone, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of defendant’s motion to clarify his sentence. See, 

e.g., Hardenbrook v. State, 953 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“Once the 

sentencing judge has awarded a defendant prior prison credit, the 

Department of Corrections has primary responsibility for calculating the 

credit.”). As to any new claims raised on rehearing, we affirm the denial 

without prejudice to the defendant’s right to raise them in a legally 

sufficient, separately-filed motion, in the trial court.

GROSS, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Bernard THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17472 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 1, 2017)

Christopher P. Canova, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Francis Todd Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Christopher Bernard Thompson, Pro Se

Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen N. Bernstein, appointed counsel for Christopher Bernard Thompson in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to .withdraw is GRANTED, and Thompson’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Amendment No. 1 to the 2010 Restatement of the Savings Plan



 Exhibit 10.15 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 
 2010 RESTATEMENT OF THE MACDERMID,
INCORPORATED 
 PROFIT SHARING AND EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN 
 In accordance with Section 11.1, MacDermid, Incorporated hereby amends the Plan to provide for a method for allocating forfeitures under the Plan, as more fully described below. 

Effective January 1, 2012, Section 5.6, Forfeitures is amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

 “In the event that forfeitures cannot be allocated under the method or for the purposes described above, or used to reduce
administrative expenses, remaining forfeitures shall be allocated to each Participant’s account per capita, as of the end of the Plan Year in which the forfeiture arose, or, if later, as of the Plan Year in which the forfeiture remains in the
Plan. For purposes of this paragraph, Participants with a terminated vested account as of the date of reallocation shall be included in a any such per capita forfeiture allocation.” 

All other provisions of the Plan remain in full force and effect. 

Signed this 13th day of March, 2012. 

By: /s/ Frank J. Monteiro 

Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Jones *et al. v.*Hearst Consolidated Publications Inc.

No. 13423.

September 24, 1940.

Grice, Justice.

1. A writing between a typographical union of the one part and three named publishers of daily newspapers of the other part, containing various provisions regarding hours of employment, wages, working conditions, adjustment of differences, and other similar matters, being what is usually termed a collective-bargaining agreement, and containing nothing more definite or certain as to employment of individuals who were members of the union than that “this contract and scale of prices shall, unless changed by mutual consent, be in effect from June 6th, 1938, to September 30th, 1940, inclusive,” and that “The publishers agree to employ or retain in employment only journeymen and apprentice members of the union in good standing, to perform the work in their respective composing rooms,” did not amount to a contract for employment of any particular individual for any period of time, and furnished no basis for a suit by individual members of the union against one of such publishers for wages claimed to be due for a period of time stated, where it appears that the publishing company had discontinued business, and that the plaintiffs had not been actually employed for the period for which wages were claimed.

2. The petition, failing to show any promise on the part of the defendant to employ or to retain in its employment any particular member or members of the union for any period of time, was insufficient to state a cause of action for recovery of wages, and this being the only matter complained of by the plaintiffs, the petition was properly dismissed on general demurrer. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*764
      *Charles E. Marlceles*and *H. C. Holbrook,*for plaintiffs.

*Hirsoh, Smith & Kilpatrick, Welborn B. Cody,*and *D. F. MoClatchey,*for defendant.
No. 76-1165.

#### Zoller & Danneberg Exploration, Ltd., et al. *v.*Ballard & Cordell Corp.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Executive Officer,

As Adopted
Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, Gerald L. Storch, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2009 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

September 4, 2009

|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|/s/    Gerald L. Storch                                                            
|Gerald L. Storch Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 ofDepomed, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endingMarch 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, John F. Hamilton, Chief 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)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the 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 9, 2007       |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |                    |
|   |   |                    |
|   |   | /s/ John F. Hamilton    |   |   |
|   |   | John F. Hamilton        |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoinette VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50035

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 **

Filed April 20, 2017

Patrick Hovakimian, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Barbara M. Donovan, Donovan & Donovan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

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 *

Antoinette Valenzuela appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month concurrent sentences imposed following her guilty-plea convictions for importation of methamphetamine and importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdic*500tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Valenzuela contends that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to her base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because, among other things, the court failed to apply Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), which added a non-exhaustive list of five factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to grant a minor role reduction. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). The Amendment became effective less than two months before Valenzuela was sentenced. Valenzuela did not discuss the five factors in her sentencing memorandum, and made only indirect reference to some of the factors at sentencing. Moreover, the court did not explicitly discuss the five factors. On this record, we cannot determine whether the district court considered all of the now-relevant factors in determining whether Valenzuela was entitled to a minor role reduction. Accordingly, we vacate Valenzuela’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the Amendment. *See United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523-24 (9th Cir. 2016).

VACATED AND REMANDED for re-sentencing.

*

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

TO: Air and Radiation Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2012 - 0401 FROM: EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality DATE: May

16 , 201 4 SUBJECT: Meeting with Element Markets On December 3 , 2013 , Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) staff held a meeting with sta ff of Element Markets . This memorandum provides written documentation and a brief summary of this meeting . This meeting explain ed the substance of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: RFS Pathways II an d Technical Amendments to the RFS 2 Standards (Docket ID EPA - HQ - OAR- 2012 - 0401 ) . OTAQ staff participating included Vincent Camobreco, David Babson , Dallas Burkholder and Shary n Lie . Element Markets representatives included Randall N. Lack, Chief Marketing Officer .
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael SASSNETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10037 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 19, 2017)

Patricia Green Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Augusta, GA, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Sassnett, Residential Reentry Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HULL, WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Brendan Fleming, appointed counsel for Michael Sassnett in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Sassnett’s *742revocation of supervised release and sentence are AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6750 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6750

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North Carolina, as the 
             ``Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. MILTON F. FITCH, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North Carolina, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Milton F. 
Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6750

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North Carolina, as the 
             ``Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building''.
```
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    LEO M.
CHUPASKALeo M. ChupaskaChief Financial Officer,Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityMay 14, 2009


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Maurice Tagami, Chief Executive Officer of Keegan Resources Inc. (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, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 20-F, of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)

the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | By:    | /s/ Maurice Tagami   
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | Maurice Tagami         
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| | Date:  | June 25, 2010          

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.