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

No. 16-40964 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 12, 2017

John A. Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, John Moreno Parras, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Paula Dominguez-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of her probation. Specifically, she contests the imposition or' reimposition of a $100 special assessment. She asserts that she was relieved of that obligation because more than five years elapsed since the date of the underlying judgment, and the court otherwise had no statutory authority to impose or reimpose the assessment. The Government agrees that the court exceeded its authority and that the written judgment should be reformed to strike the special assessment.

Although a special assessment is a mandatory component of a sentence, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A), the obligation to pay it “ceases five years after the date of the judgment,” § 3013(c). More than five years elapsed between the initial imposition of the special assessment and the revocation of probation. Because neither § 3013 nor 18 U.S.C. § 3565 sanctions the imposition of a special assessment for revocation of a term of probation, the court lacked authority to impose or reimpose a special assessment. *See United States v. Carlos Pineda,*594 F.3d 892, 893 (5th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, we VACATE in part and REMAND for amendment of the judgment consistent with this opinion.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Okana Ventures, Inc.,a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year endingDecember 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Ronnie Birch, President/CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that tomy knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 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 ofthe Company. 

 

 

***/s/ Ronnie Birch                   ***

Ronnie Birch, President, CEO

Dated: March 29, 2007

----

 

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Okana Ventures, Inc.,a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year endingDecember 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Michael Upham, Secretary, Treasurer, CFO of the Company, certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section1350), that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 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 ofthe Company. 

 

 

***/s/ Michael Upham                       ***

Michael Upham, Secretary, Treasurer, CFO

Dated: March 29, 2007
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 709 

AN ACT 

To provide for the termination of employment of employees 

of the Internal Revenue Service who take certain official 

actions for political purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 709 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prevent Targeting at 

3 the IRS Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF INTERNAL REV5 ENUE SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR TAKING OF6 FICIAL ACTIONS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (10) of section 

8 1203(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring 

9 and Reform Act of 1998 is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(10) performing, delaying, or failing to per11 form (or threatening to perform, delay, or fail to 

12 perform) any official action (including any audit) 

13 with respect to a taxpayer for purpose of extracting 

14 personal gain or benefit or for a political purpose.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

17 of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 15, 2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 709 

AN ACT 

To provide for the termination of employment of 

take certain official actions for political purposes. employees of the Internal Revenue Service who
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001005335
<NAME>                SMITH BARNEY PRINCIPAL PLUS FUTURES FUND L.P.II
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                      8,070,628
<SECURITIES>                                               13,823,993
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 568,659
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           22,463,280
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             22,463,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       1,040,621
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 21,422,659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               22,463,280
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              132,453
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              116,915
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   15,538
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   15,538
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Emanuel REID, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4472

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2017

Decided: April 11, 2017

*352John Parke Davis, Acting Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill West-moreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Emanuel Reid pled guilty to knowingly and unlawfully possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), He appeals from his 51-month sentence, alleging that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence by four-levels under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2015) because he possessed the firearm at issue in connection with another felony. We affirm.

We review any criminal sentence for reasonableness 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). In considering whether a district court properly imposed a Sentencing Guidelines enhancement, we review a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. United States v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 337 (4th Cir. 2012). Whether a defendant possessed a firearm in connection with another felony is a factual question we review for clear error. United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2009). We will find a court’s factual findings clearly erroneous only if we are “left with the definite arid firm conviction that a mis*353take has been committed.” United States v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 342 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

Here, police entered Reid’s home pursuant to a search warrant. Police found Reid there with the firearm and in possession of various items of drug paraphernalia. Reid admitted that he had been dealing cocaine from the home, which was equipped with a surveillance camera, for months.

Reid argues on appeal that the district court erred - in applying the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement because no drug trafficking offense was ongoing at the time police entered Reid’s home. We hold that the district court’s application of the enhancement is not clearly erroneous, and that the underlying evidence fully supports application of the enhancement.

Accordingly, we affirm. 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
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

   The undersigned, Eleanor L. Thomas, President (chief executive officer) of
the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the 'Managing
Owner'), of Prudential Securities 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 ending March 31,
       2003, 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/ Eleanor L. Thomas
------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor L. Thomas
President (chief executive officer) of the Managing Owner
May 15, 2003

   The undersigned, Steven Weinreb, Chief Financial Officer of the managing
owner, the Managing Owner, of 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 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/ Steven Weinreb
------------------------------------------------------
Steven Weinreb
Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner
May 15, 2003
#### Katherine HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; Union County Board of Education, a body corporate; Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, a body corporate; Stanly County Board of Education, a body corporate; Albemarle City Schools Board of Education, a body corporate; North Carolina Retirement System for Teachers and State Employees Board of Trustees; Barry Shepherd, in his individual capacity; Kathryn Auger, in her individual capacity; Gary Austin, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1199

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Katherine Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. King, III, Daniel F. E. Smith, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Terry La-Monte Wallace, WALLACE CHILDERS PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Kirk London Bowling, BOWLING LAW FIRM, PLLC, Albemarle, North Carolina; Robert Michael Curran, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Katherine Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint as time-barred. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Harris v. Cabarrus Cty. Bd. of Educ.,*No. 1:16-cv-00702-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2017). We deny Harris’ motion to amend her complaint. 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                                             
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         MAY-03-1997                   
<PERIOD-START>            JUL-21-1996                   
<PERIOD-END>              OCT-12-1996                   
<CASH>                          7,744                
<SECURITIES>                        0          
<RECEIVABLES>                   6,519          
<ALLOWANCES>                        0          
<INVENTORY>                    82,231          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              101,493          
<PP&E>                        174,535          
<DEPRECIATION>                  7,181          
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                285,044          
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          79,284          
<BONDS>                             0           
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          51,778           
<PREFERRED>                     7,604           
<COMMON>                            4           
<OTHER-SE>                   (153,664)          
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  285,044           
<SALES>                       270,834           
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              270,834           
<CGS>                         208,365           
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 264,138           
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    0           
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0           
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              8,351           
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (1,655)          
<INCOME-TAX>                     (616)          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (1,039)          
<DISCONTINUED>                      0           
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0           
<CHANGES>                           0           
<NET-INCOME>                   (1,039)          
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (6.67)          
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (6.67)          
        


</TABLE>
#### Albert S. Oshrin, Appellant, *v.*Celanese Corporation of America, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*Robert Nias West, Samuel Gottlieb*and *I. Gainsburg*for motion.

*Louis Susman*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Error in description of the instrument, which embodies the decision appealed from, mav be disregarded.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Susanne HELBIG, a/k/a Susanne D. Helbig, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7768

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Susanne Helbig, Appellant Pro Se. Heather Lynn Carlton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit..

PER CURIAM:

Susanne Helbig seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C. *749§ 2255 (2012) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Helbi^s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Helbig has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Jackson v. Lightsey,*775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting court’s review is limited to issues preserved in informal brief); *Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004) (deeming abandoned issue not raised in brief). Accordingly, we deny Helbig’s motions for a transcript at government expense and to supplement her informal brief, deny a certificate of appeal-ability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 73

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize certain disabled former

prisoners of war to use Department of Defense commissary stores and

post and base exchanges.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize certain

disabled former prisoners of war to use Department of

Defense commissary stores and post and base exchanges.

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

3 That (a) chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new

5 section:

6 ‘‘§ 1051. Use of commissary stores and post and base

7 exchanges by certain disabled former

8 members of the armed forces

9 ‘‘(a) In this section—
2

S 73 IS

1 ‘‘(1) ‘former prisoner of war’ has the same

2 meaning as provided in section 101(32) of title 38;

3 and

4 ‘‘(2) ‘service-connected’ has the same meaning

5 as provided in section 101(16) of such title.

6 ‘‘(b)(1) Under regulations prescribed as provided in

7 paragraph (2), a former prisoner of war who—

8 ‘‘(A) has been separated from active service in

9 the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Marine

10 Corps under honorable conditions, and

11 ‘‘(B) has a service-connected disability rated by

12 the Secretary concerned or the Administrator of Vet13 erans’ Affairs at 30 per centum or more,

14 shall be permitted to use commissary stores and post and

15 base exchanges operating under the Department of

16 Defense.

17 ‘‘(2)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe reg18 ulations to carry out paragraph (1) in the case of com19 missary stores.

20 ‘‘(B) The Secretary of the military department con21 cerned shall prescribe regulations to carry out paragraph

22 (1) in the case of post or base exchanges operating under

23 the jurisdiction of such military department.’’.
3

S 73 IS

1 (b) The table of sections at the beginning of such

2 chapter is amended by adding at the end thereof the fol3 lowing new item:

‘‘1051. Use of commissary stores and post and base exchanges by certain disabled former members of the armed forces.’’.

Æ
# EUR-Lex - 32002Q0769R(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002Q0769R(02)

**Corrigendum to the Rules of Procedure of the European Economic and Social Committee (adopted by the plenary session on 17 July 2002) (OJ L 268 of 4.10.2002) **

*
Official Journal L 258 , 10/10/2003 P. 0039 - 0039 *

Corrigendum to the Rules of Procedure of the European Economic and Social Committee (adopted by the plenary session on 17 July 2002)

(Official Journal of the European Communities L 268 of 4 October 2002)

On 26 February 2003, the plenary assembly decided by an absolute majority of its members that Article 32 of the EESC's Rules of Procedure should read as follows:

Article 32

1. When an opinion or information report is to be produced, the bureau, in accordance with Article 8(4), shall designate the specialised section which is to be responsible for preparing the work in question. Where the matter for consideration is clearly within the purview of a given specialised section, the president shall designate that section and inform the bureau of his/her decision.

2. Where a specialised section that has been designated to prepare an opinion wishes to hear the views of the Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (CCIC) or where the CCIC wishes to set out its views on an opinion allocated to a specialised section, the bureau may authorise the CCIC to draw up a supplementary opinion on one or more of the issues covered by the referral. The bureau may also take this decision on its own initiative. The bureau shall organise the Committee's work in such a way that the CCIC is able to prepare its opinion in good time to be taken into consideration by the specialised section.

The specialised section alone shall be responsible for reporting to the Committee. It shall however append to its opinion the supplementary opinion drawn up by the Consultative Commission on Industrial Change.

3. The president of the specialised section concerned shall be notified by the Committee president of the decision and of the time limit for the completion of the section's work.

4. The Committee president shall inform the members of the Committee of the referral to the section and of the date on which the subject is to be dealt with by the plenary session.