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

No. 16-15916 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 7, 2017)

Dashene Cooper, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Andrew Horn, Erin Sanders, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Mary Jane Stewart, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Vionnette Johnson, Stephanie A. Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Khalif Edwards pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Based in part on its conclusion that Edwards’ earlier Georgia conviction for felony obstruction of an officer qualified as a crime of violence under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(a)(2), the district court calculated that Edwards’ total offense level was 25 and his criminal history'category was VI. That resulted in a guidelines range of 110 to 120 months imprisonment, *771The district .court sentenced him to 120 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release. Edwards appealed, contending that his conviction for obstruction of an officer should not have qualified as a crime of violence.

This Court has held that felony obstruction of an officer under Georgia law qualifies as a violent felony under the elements clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act. United States v. Brown, 805 F.3d 1325, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2015).1 “We have recognized that the definitions of ‘crime of violence’ under the Sentencing Guidelines and ‘violent felony’ under the Armed Career Criminal Act are virtually identical and have held that [cjonsidering whether a crime is a ‘violent felony5 ... is similar to considering whether a conviction qualifies as a ‘crime of violence.’ ” United States v. Welch, 683 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted) (alteration and omission in original). As a result, felony obstruction of an officer under Georgia law is a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). Edwards’ contentions to the contrary are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Edwards argues that our conclusion in the Brown decision was incorrect in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 2281, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013). But Descamps was decided before Brown, so our Brown decision remains binding and we cannot reconsider it—even if the panel in Brown should have reached a different result in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Descamps. See United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 942 (11th Cir. 2016) (‘‘Under this Court's prior panel precedent rule, there is never an exception carved out for overlooked or misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent.”).
# L_2011211DE.01003501.xml

| 18.8.2011 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 211/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2011

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 211/35

---

Berichtigung der Entscheidung 2002/106/EG der Kommission vom 1. Februar 2002 zur Genehmigung eines Diagnosehandbuchs mit Diagnosemethoden, Probenahmeverfahren und Kriterien für die Auswertung von Laboruntersuchungen zur Bestätigung der Klassischen Schweinepest

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 39 vom 9. Februar 2002
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 39 vom 9. Februar 2002

Seite 75, im Anhang Kapitel II Abschnitt D Nummer 2 Absatz 1 Satz 2:

anstatt:

„Fruchtbarkeitsstörungen und Aborte können sowohl durch Klassische Schweinepest als auch durch Parvovirus-Infektionen, CBPP, Leptospirose und Aujeszky-Krankheit hervorgerufen werden.“

muss es heißen:

„Fruchtbarkeitsstörungen und Aborte können sowohl durch Klassische Schweinepest als auch durch Parvovirus-Infektionen, PRRS, Leptospirose und Aujeszky-Krankheit hervorgerufen werden.“

---
#### JOHN J. PITCHELL *v.*CITY OF HARTFORD ET AL.

(AC 20539)

Foti, Spear and Dupont, Js.

Argued May 1

officially released May 22, 2001

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 13.1




Certification
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)
 
 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Grupo Aeroportuario del Centro Norte, S.A.B. de C.V. (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:
 
 The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Dated: June 11, 2009
By:/s/ Rubén Gerardo López BarreraName: Rubén Gerardo López BarreraTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDated: June 11, 2009
By:/s/ Víctor Humberto Bravo MartínName: Víctor Humberto Bravo MartínTitle: Chief Financial Officer
# L_2016324DE.01001901.xml

| 30.11.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 324/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 324/19

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1206/2001 des Rates vom 28. Mai 2001 über die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Gerichten der Mitgliedstaaten auf dem Gebiet der Beweisaufnahme in Zivil- oder Handelssachen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 174 vom 27. Juni 2001
  )

Seite 8, Artikel 22 Absatz 1

Anstatt:

„Jeder Mitgliedstaat teilt der Kommission bis zum 1. Juli 2003 Folgendes mit:

| 1. | die Liste nach Artikel 2 Absatz 2 sowie eine Angabe des örtlichen und gegebenenfalls fachlichen Zuständigkeitsbereichs der Gerichte; |
| --- | --- |

1.

die Liste nach Artikel 2 Absatz 2 sowie eine Angabe des örtlichen und gegebenenfalls fachlichen Zuständigkeitsbereichs der Gerichte;

| 2. | den Namen und die Anschrift der Zentralstellen und zuständigen Behörden nach Artikel 3 unter Angabe ihres örtlichen Zuständigkeitsbereichs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

den Namen und die Anschrift der Zentralstellen und zuständigen Behörden nach Artikel 3 unter Angabe ihres örtlichen Zuständigkeitsbereichs;

| 3. | die technischen Mittel, über die die in der Liste nach Artikel 2 Absatz 2 aufgeführten Gerichte für die Entgegennahme von Ersuchen verfügen; |
| --- | --- |

3.

die technischen Mittel, über die die in der Liste nach Artikel 2 Absatz 2 aufgeführten Gerichte für die Entgegennahme von Ersuchen verfügen;

| 4. | die Sprachen, die für die Ersuchen nach Artikel 5 zugelassen sind.“ |
| --- | --- |

4.

die Sprachen, die für die Ersuchen nach Artikel 5 zugelassen sind.“

muss es heißen:

„Jeder Mitgliedstaat teilt der Kommission bis zum 1. Juli 2003 Folgendes mit:

| a) | die Liste nach Artikel 2 Absatz 2 sowie eine Angabe des örtlichen und gegebenenfalls fachlichen Zuständigkeitsbereichs der Gerichte; |
| --- | --- |

a)

die Liste nach Artikel 2 Absatz 2 sowie eine Angabe des örtlichen und gegebenenfalls fachlichen Zuständigkeitsbereichs der Gerichte;

| b) | den Namen und die Anschrift der Zentralstellen und zuständigen Behörden nach Artikel 3 unter Angabe ihres örtlichen Zuständigkeitsbereichs; |
| --- | --- |

b)

den Namen und die Anschrift der Zentralstellen und zuständigen Behörden nach Artikel 3 unter Angabe ihres örtlichen Zuständigkeitsbereichs;

| c) | die technischen Mittel, über die die in der Liste nach Artikel 2 Absatz 2 aufgeführten Gerichte für die Entgegennahme von Ersuchen verfügen; |
| --- | --- |

c)

die technischen Mittel, über die die in der Liste nach Artikel 2 Absatz 2 aufgeführten Gerichte für die Entgegennahme von Ersuchen verfügen;

| d) | die Sprachen, die für die Ersuchen nach Artikel 5 zugelassen sind.“ |
| --- | --- |

d)

die Sprachen, die für die Ersuchen nach Artikel 5 zugelassen sind.“

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tawanda Lakaye BURKETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-14217 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(April 24, 2017)

Nancy J. Hess, Lennard B. Register, III, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Peter G. Fisher, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Pamela C. Marsh, Francis Todd Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Daniel Francis Daly, Law Office of Daniel F. Daly, Gainesville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tawanda Lakaye Burkett appeals her convictions for knowingly participating in the sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C, §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(2), and for knowingly benefiting from the sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of § 1591(a)(2). On appeal, Burkett argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the testimony of Rachel Andres, a government witness, because Andres’s testimony was not credible. She also argues that her motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the evidence was insufficient to establish that she knowingly participated in and benefitted from the sex trafficking of a minor.

The record contains evidence that Burk-ett drove E.B., a minor, to locations where E,B. would have sex for money. She charged E.B. for the drive. Andres testified that she worked with Burkett in prostitution and Burkett similarly drove Andres to “out-calls,” received phone calls from Andres’s clients, and “set everything up!”

We review the admission of Andres’s evidence for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Jernigan,*341 F.3d 1273, 1284 (11th Cir. 2003). Credibility determinations rest within the “exclusive province of the jury,” and will not be disturbed unless the testimony the jury relied on was “incredible as a matter of law.” *See United States v. Thompson,*422 F.3d 1285, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2005). In order to be incredible as a matter of law, testimony “must be unbelievable on its face, i.e., testimony as to facts that the witness could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature.” *Id.*at 1291 (internal quotation marks omitted). Andres’s testimony was not unbelievable on its face. Her credibility was for the jury to consider, and there was nó abuse of discretion by the district court in admitting it.

We review de novo a claim that the evidence at trial was insufficient. *See United States v. White,*663 F.3d 1207, 1213 (11th Cir. 2011). After a de novo review, we conclude that a jury “reasonably could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” based on Andres’s testimony and the other evidence admitted at Burkett’s trial. *See United States v. Martin,*803 *730F.3d 581, 587 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.
p.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

70) IV-C-36 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:54 AM Sheet 70 of 232 
P.2 

or «» 

^-c-3^ 

USE V 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

0"AM /9/S86 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. Greg Murray 

Murray's Ford, Inc. 

R.D. No. 1 Box 12 

Dubois, PA 15801 

Dear Mr. Murray: 

Thank you for your comments concerning EPA's proposal to 

require onboard refueling emission controls. Be assured that 

your comments will be considered in the next phase of our 

rulemaking. We will also be placing them in the public docket 

for the Rulemaking. 

Thank you again for your concern in this matter. 

Sincerely yoi 

Jilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Honorable Arlen Specter 

U.S. Senate
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket** Docket Number: F AA- 2014 - 0426 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM231AD

692D100 - 52 -4, R2 --- 8/1 /13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
#### Susan STANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

2016-1990

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 19, 2017

Michael D. Sydow, Sr., The Sydow Firm, Houston, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Mariana Teresa Acevedo, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Aso represented by Benjamin C.’ Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Brian A. Mizoguchi.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Newman and Linn, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause haying been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
|                                                    |   |   Three Months Ended |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|                                                    |   | March 31, 2011            |   |   | March 31, 2010 |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Including Deposits) |   |                      |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings:                                               |   |                      |   |   |   |   |
|    Income before income taxes            |   | $                         | 18,667 |   |   | $ | 16,137 |   |
|    Add:  Fixed charges, net    |   |                      | 19,101 |   |   |   | 21,647 |   |
| Income before income taxes and fixed charges, net       |   |                      | 37,768 |   |   |   | 37,784 |   |
| Fixed charges                                           |   |                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|    Interest expense                      |   | $                         | 18,152 |   |   | $ | 20,815 |   |
|    One-third of rental expense           |   |                      | 242    |   |   |   | 248 |   |
|    Interest on unrecognized tax benefits |   |                      | 707    |   |   |   | 584 |   |
| Total fixed charges                                     |   |                      | 19,101 |   |   |   | 21,647 |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                      |   |                      | 1.98   |   |   |   | 1.75 |   |
|                                                    |   |                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                    |   |                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Excluding Deposits) |   |                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings:                                               |   |                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|    Income before income taxes            |   | $                         | 18,667 |   |   | $ | 16,137 |   |
|    Add:  Fixed charges, net    |   |                      | 12,316 |   |   |   | 14,054 |   |
| Income before income taxes and fixed charges, net       |   |                      | 30,983 |   |   |   | 30,191 |   |
| Fixed charges                                           |   |                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|    Interest expense (excluding deposits) |   |                      | 11367  |   |   |   | 13,222 |   |
|    One-third of rental expense           |   |                      | 242    |   |   |   | 248 |   |
|    Interest on unrecognized tax benefits |   |                      | 707    |   |   |   | 584 |   |
| Total fixed charges                                     |   |                      | 12,316 |   |   |   | 14,054 |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                      |   |                      | 2.52   |   |   |   | 2.15 |   |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Leonhardt HAUPT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-3056

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed May 26, 2017

(D.C. No. 2:15-CR-20019-JAR-1), (D. Kansas)

James A. Brown, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, Carrie N, Capwell, Sheri Catania, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, Colin D. Wood, Office of the United States At*598torney, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Virginia L. Grady, O. Dean Sanderford, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MORITZ, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

The government has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to an appeal waiver included in defendant-appellant Charles Haupt’s plea agreement. Mr. Haupt, through counsel, “agrees that his appeal waiver is enforceable under ... *United States v.*Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc)” and “does not oppose the dismissal of this appeal.” Resp. to Mot. for Enforcement of Appeal Waiver at 1.

Accordingly,’ the appeal is dismissed.

*

 This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,999
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,491
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     43,876
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          10,934
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            10,749
<LOANS>                                        220,369
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,213
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 292,376
<DEPOSITS>                                     217,045
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,630
<LONG-TERM>                                     39,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 292,376
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,569
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  891
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    55
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,515
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,473
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,973
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,542
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       15
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,419
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,419
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       946
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7,712
<LOANS-NON>                                        752
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   335
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,380
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,212
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       14
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,213
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,213
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6394 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6394

To require the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress 
 a report on promoting broadband Internet access service for veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 2016

Mr. McNerney (for himself and Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress 
 a report on promoting broadband Internet access service for veterans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Broadband Access for 
Veterans Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON PROMOTING BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE FOR 
              VETERANS.

    (a) Veteran Defined.--In this section, the term ``veteran'' has the 
meaning given the term in section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
    (b) Report Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall 
submit to Congress a report on promoting broadband Internet access 
service for veterans, in particular low-income veterans and veterans 
residing in rural areas. In such report, the Commission shall--
            (1) examine such access and how to promote such access; and
            (2) provide findings and recommendations for Congress with 
        respect to such access and how to promote such access.
    (c) Public Notice and Opportunity To Comment.--In preparing the 
report required by subsection (b), the Commission shall provide the 
public with notice and an opportunity to comment on broadband Internet 
access service for veterans, in particular low-income veterans and 
veterans residing in rural areas, and how to promote such access.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.2








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 Annual Report of Bridgeline Software, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended Septemberr 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ronald M.
Levenson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
certifies, 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 his
knowledge:





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





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
and result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.





Date:  December
      29, 2009
            
            /s/
      Ronald M. LevensonName:
            Ronald
      M. LevensonTitle:
            Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.