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

No. 16-31009 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 9, 2017

*788Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Catherine F. Romero, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Catherine F. Romero appeals the sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering. In accordance with a plea agreement, the Government moved to dismiss 10 other counts and a separate wire-fraud prosecution. The district court sentenced Romero to 120 months in prison, a variance above the guideline maximum of 87 months.

Romero first contends that she was entitled to a sentence reduction for accepting responsibility, even though she also received an offense level increase for obstruction of justice. Except in “extraordinary cases,” an enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 “indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility” under § 3E1.1. *See*§ 3E1.1, comment, (n.4); *United States v. Chung,*261 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2001). We will affirm a district court’s denial of credit for acceptance “unless it is without foundation.” *United States v. Edwards,*911 F.2d 1031, 1034 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).

While on bail after her arrest, Romero tried to obtain, through uncharged fraudulent conduct, money to appease some victims so that they might stop aiding the prosecution. She also tried to get *789one victim to make a false statement about money given to Romero. Romero’s obstruction continued after her bail was revoked, and it ended only when her would-be assistants outside the jail decided to stop helping her. In the face of this obstruction, Romero’s acknowledgment of the uncharged relevant conduct did not make her case extraordinary. *See Chung,*261 F.3d at 540. The court’s denial of credit for acceptance was not without foundation. *See Edwards,*911 F.2d at 1034.

In addition, Romero contends that her sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court gave ample and specific reasons for the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the extent of Romero’s fraud and her history of similar crimes. We “give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence was not unreasonable or an abuse of discretion. *See id.*at 46, 128 S.Ct. 586; *Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Stephen R. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to 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 results of operations of
the Company.



Date: June 11, 2007



/s/    STEPHEN R.
BROWNStephen R. Brown Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Chuck Robert Holcomb

, * From the 35 0 th District Court

o f Taylor County,

Trial Court No

. 13191

- D.

Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00 124

- CR * May 5 , 2022

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0797 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0797

**2002/797/EC: Commission Decision of 14 October 2002 amending Decision 97/467/EC as regards Greenland for farmed game meat (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 3751) **

*
Official Journal L 277 , 15/10/2002 P. 0023 - 0024 *

Commission Decision

of 14 October 2002

amending Decision 97/467/EC as regards Greenland for farmed game meat

(notified under document number C(2002) 3751)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/797/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Decision 2001/4/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Provisional lists of establishments producing rabbit meat and farmed game meat have been drawn up by Commission Decision 97/467/EC of 7 July 1997 drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meat(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/614/EC(4).

(2) Greenland has sent a list of establishments producing farmed game meat which have been certified by the competent authority as being in accordance with Community rules.

(3) A provisional list of establishments producing farmed game meat can thus be drawn up for Greenland.

(4) Decision 97/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text in the Annex to this Decision is added to Annex I to Decision 97/467/EC.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 October 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 57.

(4) OJ L 196, 25.7.2002, p. 58.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

País: Groenlandia/Land: Grønland/Land: Grönland/Κράτος: Γροιλανδία/Country: Greenland/Pays: Groenland/Paese: Groenlandia/Land: Groenland/País: Gronelândia/Maa: Grönlanti/Land: Grönland

>TABLE>

SH: Matadero/slagteri/Schlachthof/σφαγείο/slaughterhouse/abattoir/macello/slachthuis/Matadouro/teurastamo/Slakteri

CS: Almacén frigorífico/køle-/frysehus/Kühllager/ψυκτικός χώρος αποθήκευσης/cold store/entreposage/deposito frigorifero/koelhuis/Armazém frigorífico/kylmävarasto/Kyl- eller fryshus

CP: Sala de despiece/opskæringsvirksomheder/Zerlegungsbetrieb/εργαστήριο τεμαχισμού/cutting plant/découpe/sala di sezionamento/uitsnijderij/Sala de corte/leikkaamo/Styckningsanläggning

b: Biungulados/klovbærende dyr/Paarhufer/δίχηλα/biungulates/biongulés/biungulati/tweehoevigen/Biungulados/sorkkaeläimet/Klövdjur
#### Pedro JACUINDE-NAMBO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73882

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney *&*March!, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Tim Ramnitz, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Jacuinde-Nambo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Jacuinde-Nambo does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s disposi-tive conclusion that his asylum application was untimely, and that he failed to establish any changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse its untimeliness. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). *841Thus, we deny the petition as to Jacuinde-Nambo’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jacuinde-Nambo failed to establish he was persecuted in Mexico, *see Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Random, isolated criminal acts perpetrated by anonymous thieves do not establish persecution[ ]”), and its conclusion that he did not establish he would be harmed on account of a protected ground if returned to Mexico, *see Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch,*816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016); *Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Jacuinde-Nambo’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because Jacuinde-Nambo failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
|                              |
|------------------------------|
|                              |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                         |    |   | For the YearEndedDecember 31,2008 |   | For the YearEndedDecember 31,2009 |   | For the YearEndedDecember 31,2010 |   | For the YearEndedDecember 31,2011 |   | For the YearEndedDecember 31,2012 |   |
| Earnings to Fixed Charges(1) |    |    |   | 2.73 |    |   | 1.58 |    |   | 4.14 |    |   | 6.22 |    |   | 4.52 |  |    |

|     |                                                                                                                                                         |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | Earnings include net realized and unrealized gains or losses. Net realized and unrealized gains or losses can vary substantially from period to period. |

|         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| • | Excluding net unrealized gains or losses, the earnings to fixed charges ratio would be 3.69 for the year ended December 31, 2008, 3.00 for the year ended December 31, 2009, 2.80 for the year ended December 31, 2010, 5.64 for the year ended December 31, 2011 and 4.68 for the year ended December 31, 2012. |

|         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| • | Excluding net realized and unrealized gains or losses, the earnings to fixed charges ratio would be 3.37 for the year ended December 31, 2008, 2.93 for the year ended December 31, 2009, 3.47 for the year ended December 31, 2010, 4.65 for the year ended December 31, 2011 and 4.30 for the year ended December 31, 2012. |
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05056]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR22-28-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: COH SOC 
Rates effective 1-31-2022 to be effective 1/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/2/2022.
    Accession Number: 20220302[not]5147.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-676-000.
    Applicants: Stagecoach Pipeline & Storage Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Stagecoach Pipeline & Storage 
Company LLC NRA Chesapeake Energy Marketing LLC to be effective 4/1/
2022.
    Filed Date: 3/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220304-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-677-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Direct Energy 
SP64598 & SP346759 BKV SP367952 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220304-5054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 4, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05056 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charif Souki, Chief Executive Officer of Sabine Pass LNG-GP, Inc., the general partner of the
Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 26, 2009



|                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Charif Souki                                                                                          
|Charif Souki Chief Executive Officer of Sabine Pass LNG-GP, Inc., general partner of Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.
* Claimed confidential by submitter** Claimed confidential by submitter*
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of Applied Graphics Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kenneth Torosian, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and
Treasurer of the Company, 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:

      (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 results of operations of the
Company.

                                           /s/ Kenneth G. Torosian
                                           -------------------------------------
                                               Kenneth G. Torosian
                                               Senior Vice President, Chief
                                               Financial Officer, and Treasurer
                                               November 14, 2002




                                       31
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350  (Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the filing by TravelCenters of America LLC (the "Company") of the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



Date: February 24, 2010

/s/ THOMAS M. O'BRIEN Thomas M. O'Brien President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ ANDREW J. REBHOLZ Andrew J. Rebholz Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer




---



QuickLinks
#### Mary Ann Killip et al., Respondents, *v.*Michael Metzen et al., Appellants.

(Argued September 11, 1871;

decided June 20, 1872.)

This was an action to compel defendants to deliver up and cancel a mortgage given by plaintiffs under the following circumstances : Defendants contracted to furnish the materials and to build a house upon plaintiffs’ premises for a specified sum, to be paid by installments as' the work progressed. Defendants proceeded with the work until they had earned two. installments, but upon plaintiffs refusing to make the *659payments they abandoned it. Subsequently it was agreed between the parties that plaintiffs should execute and deliver to defendants a bond and mortgage for an amount equal to the original contract-price, and for certain expenses for insurance, etc., payable six months from date. Defendants agreed to complete the building according to the plans and specifications of the original contract, provided the title to the mortgaged premises should, upon examination, prove satisfactory. If not they were to hold the bond and mortgage for the work already done. The bond and mortgage were executed, and defendants proceeded to complete the building; but before it was finished it was blown down and destroyed by a violent storm. Defendants declined to erect a new building. The court below decided that plaintiffs were' entitled to have the mortgage delivered up and canceled. *Held*(Allen and Folgee, JJ., dissenting), that by the new contract defendants did not reinstate the original contract or resume its performance and risks; that there was no express or implied surrender of the absolute right acquired by plaintiffs’ default, and that defendants were entitled to hold the bond and mortgage as security for the work performed under the original contract.

*Amasa J. Parker*for the appellants.

*George O. Stitt*for the respondents.

Andrews, J.,

reads opinion for reversal and new trial.

All concur except Allen and Folgee, JJ., dissenting.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kalvin Wayne SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-15662 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 5, 2017)

R. Brian Tanner, Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., James D. Durham, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kalvin Wayne Smith, Pro Se

Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

David McCrea, appointed counsel for Kalvin Smith 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 Smith’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. Kalvin Smith’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED as moot.