alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles J. WEBER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-2150

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 12, 2017

Filed: October 19, 2017

Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Phillip Eugene (Gene) Porter, Asst. U.S. ' Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal prisoner Charles Weber, who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, appeals from the order of the District Court1 denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that challenged his sentence under Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) (invalidating the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague). Specifically, Weber challenged his increased offense level under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1. After de novo review, we conclude that the District Court properly denied relief because Weber’s sentence was calculated under the advisory Guidelines, which are not subject to void-for-vagueness challenges. See Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04615]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Animal Models of Aging.
    Date: March 28, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institutes of 
Health, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#57313e25233f3c3a173a363e3b79393e3f79303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec8a859e98848781ac818d8580c2828584c28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 1, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-04615 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-76 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

As independentregistered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of ourreport dated March 20, 2009 relating to the consolidated financialstatements of American DG Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries as of and for theyears ended December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 included in thisAnnual report on Form 10-K, into the Company’s previously filedRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (File No 333-146628 and File No. 333-151287).

 

 
| /s/ Vitale,  Caturano & Company, P.C. |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                           |   |
| VITALE,  CATURANO & COMPANY, P.C.     |   |
|                                           |   |
|                                           |   |
| March 20, 2009                            |   |
| Boston, Massachusetts                          |   |

 

----
#### Daniel Fitzhugh et al., Respondents, *v.*William H. Sackett, Appellant.

(Argued December 20, 1872;

decided December 24, 1872.)

Defendant was the owner of certain real estate, upon which was a mortgage held by plaintiffs’ testator. One Elisha B. Sackett, a brother of defendant, induced the mortgagee to receive certain drafts, purporting to be accepted by defendant, and to assign the mortgage to him. The acceptance was in fact by another William H. Sackett, who was entirely irresponsible. Elisha B. Sackett was in no manner bound to *700pay the mortgage. The transaction was unauthorized by defendant, who was entirely ignorant of it at the time, hut who was informed of it a few months thereafter. The mortgage was subsequently satisfied of record, without any consideration being paid by defendant, who sold the premises freed from the incumbrance. The action was brought to recover the amount of the drafts. The case was before this court in 1866, presenting nearly-the same facts. The court then held that, defendant having full knowlege of the fraud before the transfer of the premises by him, and he thus having availed himself of the advantages secured thereby, he ratified the acts of his assumed agent, and was bound by the representations of the latter. Appellant’s counsel claimed that the doctrine thus laid down had been overruled by *Henry v. Wilkes*(37 N. Y., 562). But *held*(Church, J., dissenting), that the former decision should be regarded as the law of the case, and will not he disturbed; that *Henry*v. *Wilkes*differed from this case in this, that in that case the person who had, without authority, assumed to act as defendant’s agent in borrowing money to pay off an incumbrance was himself, as between him and defendant, bound to pay the incumbrance; that defendant, therefore, did not claim the benefit of the contract of the assumed agent in making the loan, but claimed under the contract of the agent with him.

*George F. Danforth*for the appellant,

*Scott Lord*for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

Opinion for affirmance

All concur, except Church, Ch. J., dissenting.

Judgment affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Marie Ramundo, Respondent, against Harris H. Murdock et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Appellants.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*Max A. Gulack*for motion.

*Robert H. Schaffer, Acting Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*of counsel), opposed.

Motion dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, on the ground that an appeal would lie as of right if taken within the statutory time.
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


         In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  CytoGenix,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 1O-Q for the period ended  September  30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lex
M. Cowsert, Ph.D., certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

November 19, 2008

/s/ Lex M. Cowsert, Ph.D.
------------------------
Lex M. Cowsert, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
(Appointed November 14, 2008)
#### DeMAEGHT *v.*GUSTAFSON.

Appeal and Error — Negligence—Contributory Negligence — Trial ■ Court Finding.

Finding of trial judge in negligence ease arising out of intersection collision that both plaintiff and defendant were guilty of negligence *held,*supported by record and not clearly erroneous.

Reference for Points in Headnote

5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 839.

Appeal from Macomb; Cynar (Walter P.), J.

Submitted Division 2 June 4, 1968, at Lansing*.

(Docket No. 3,510.)

Decided June 24, 1968.

Complaint by Jules DeMaeght and Martha De-Mae'ght against Eino Gustafson and Arthur William Boyden, III, for damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile collision at an intersection. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Mary Jane Liddy*and *John G. Cross,*for plaintiffs.

*Becher, Mitchell, Phillips, Zanglin & Vann,*for defendants.

Per Curiam.

The trial judge, sitting without a jury, found as a matter of fact both plaintiff and defendant guilty of neglig*ence. Upon appeal the *699plaintiff raises the basic issue of the sufficiency of evidence. A review of the record supports the finding of fact by the trial judge. The finding not being clearly erroneous, we affirm.

Costs to appellees.

Lesinski, C. J., and Burns and Fenlon, JJ., concurred.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7055 

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to provide that the supplemental security income benefits of adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities shall not be reduced by reason of marriage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2024 

Mr. VALADAO (for himself, Ms. LEE of Nevada, Mr. LAWLER, Mr. KILMER, 

Mr. MOLINARO, and Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to provide 

that the supplemental security income benefits of adults 

with intellectual or developmental disabilities shall not 

be reduced by reason of marriage. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminating the Mar5 riage Penalty in SSI Act’’ or the ‘‘EMPSA Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7055 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME BENEFITS. 

2 (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS.—Section 1611(a) of 

3 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(a)) is amended 

4 by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 

6 subsection, each individual who has attained 18 years of 

7 age, who is diagnosed with an intellectual or develop8 mental disability, whose income, other than income ex9 cluded pursuant to section 1612(b), is at not more than 

10 the rate in effect for purposes of paragraph (1)(A) of this 

11 subsection, and whose resources, other than resources ex12 cluded pursuant to section 1613(a), are not more than the 

13 applicable amount in effect for purposes of paragraph 

14 (3)(B) of this subsection, shall be an eligible individual 

15 for purposes of this title.’’. 

16 (b) AMOUNT OF BENEFIT.—Section 1611(b) of such 

17 Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(b)) is amended by adding at the end 

18 the following: 

19 ‘‘(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 

20 subsection, the benefit under this title for an individual 

21 described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, whether or 

22 not the individual has an eligible spouse, shall be payable 

23 at the rate in effect for purposes of such paragraph (1), 

24 reduced by the amount of income, not excluded pursuant 

25 to section 1612(b), of the individual.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7055 IH

1 (c) INCOME AND RESOURCE DEEMING RULES.—Sec2 tion 1614(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(f)) is amended 

3 by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this sub5 section, for purposes of determining eligibility for, and the 

6 amount of, benefits for an individual described in section 

7 1611(a)(4) who is married, the income and resources of 

8 the individual is deemed to not include any income or re9 sources of the spouse.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 3072

_____________________________
T HOMAS S IMS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Francis Allman , Judge

. September 23, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , C.J., an d B ILBREY and J AY , 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 Kevin Steiger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. 270 Park Avenue Corporation, et al., Respondents, against James J. Sexton et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Argued November 18, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*792
      *Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corporation Counsel {Arthur H. Goldberg*and *Edmund B. Hennefeld*of counsel), for appellants.

*Herbert C. Smyth, Jr., George Natanson*and *Gerald Dwyer*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7083 

To prohibit the Federal Government from removing or altering a barrier, 

fence, barbed wire, or obstacle constructed by a State along the United 

States border for the purpose of preventing unlawful crossings, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2024 

Mr. COLLINS (for himself, Mr. SELF, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. BURCHETT, Mr. 

CLOUD, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. OGLES, Mr. BEAN of Florida, Mr. MOORE of 

Alabama, Mr. D’ESPOSITO, Ms. BOEBERT, Ms. DE LA CRUZ, Mr. 

FEENSTRA, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. MCCORMICK, Mr. LUTTRELL, 

Mr. BABIN, and Mr. MILLS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Government from removing or altering a barrier, fence, barbed wire, or obstacle constructed 

by a State along the United States border for the purpose of preventing unlawful crossings, and for other purposes. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7083 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restricting Adminis3 tration Zealots from Obliging Raiders Act’’ or the 

4 ‘‘RAZOR Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 

6 No department or agency of the Federal Government 

7 may remove or alter a barrier, fence, barbed wire, or ob8 stacle constructed by a State along the United States bor9 der for the purpose of preventing unlawful crossings. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-11263

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Calvin Ace Guerette, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:05-CR-44-2

______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Calvin Ace 

Guerette has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guerette has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 23, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-11263 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2024
No. 23-11263

2

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

Case: 23-11263 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2024
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 1 to the Employment Agreement for Robert W. Henley (“Amendment”) is made, effective as of June 1,
2012, by and between NVR, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”) and Robert W. Henley (“Executive”). 

Recitals: 
 WHEREAS, Executive and the Company previously entered into an Employment Agreement, effective as of January 2, 2011, (the “Employment Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, Executive and the Company desire to further amend the Employment Agreement to change the Executive’s base salary and
title. 
 Agreement: 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements contained herein and of such other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which Executive acknowledges, the Company and Executive,
intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 
 1. The second sentence of Section 1.1 is replaced in the entirety to
read as follows: 
 “The Executive will serve in the capacity of President of NVR Mortgage Finance,
Inc.” 
 2. The first sentence of Section 3.1 is replaced in the entirety to read as follows: 

“As compensation for all services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, the Company will pay to the Executive an
annual base salary of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000) payable in equal monthly installments of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($25,000.00).” 
 3. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment on
the date first written above. 
  

					
	NVR, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Joseph Madigan

		 	Name:	 	Joseph Madigan
		 	Title:	 	Senior Vice President Human Resources
		
		 	EXECUTIVE
		
		 	 /s/ Robert W. Henley

		 	Name:	 	Robert W. Henley
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y WASHI N GTON , D . C . 20460

O FF I CE O F P OLICY I cc r1i fy that the U .S. E nvi ronme ntal Pro tec ti o n Agency comp li ed w ith the req uire m en t s of Exec uti ve Order 1 3132 fo r t he attached dra!l final r e gula ti on. Ca rb o n P o lluti on Emi ss io n G uid el in es fo r Ex is tin g S ta ti o nary So urce s : Electri c U tilit y Generating U nit s . RIN 2060-/\R 33.



# tu{~. Ass ociate A dmini s trat o r, Office of Policy

I n te rn et A ddress ( UR L) • http :// www . epa . gov R ec y c l ed / Re c yclable · Pr i nted wi t h Veget a ble O i l B ased I nks on 100 % Postconsumer, Process Chlor i ne Free R ecyc l ed P a p e r
To THe- Cntjjcr&F' daxmx^L f}f/>mLs (j^SSf-^/ryfi

of 72^/ts

/?£ I Ozsposrixo/o

oto iTtese (J&tTqF/Hrtb&Qs Corpuse<$ RECEIVED IM_

(*)£-&% 858 ~ Ito APR OA ZQ15

£J£- 6?/ S "5 $ ~/ 7 Ab@lAG©§ta,Gie?k

_X7S hetfO m?&£- thati 3oc^ys* orJTTfs CJ*s7~of1/?yfl/0cl4/»u$