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

No. 16-11646 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 29, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern *273District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Wayland Demond Hinkle pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and the district court sentenced him to 188 months of imprisonment. We vacated his sentence, holding that he did not qualify as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines, *United States v. Hinkle,*832 F.3d 569, 576-77 (5th Cir. 2016). On remand, the district court imposed an upward variance from a guidelines range of 33 to 41 months and sentenced Hinkle to 90 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Hinkle now argues that the district court plainly erred under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by imposing a sentence based on factual findings that were not supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed under current circuit law, but he raises the claim solely to preserve it for further review.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Because Hinkle’s arguments are foreclosed by *United States v. Tuma,*738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2013), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits is DENIED as unnecessary.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.1



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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  accompanying  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Tombstone
Technologies,  Inc. for the year ended  December  31,  2008,  I, John N. Harris,
President,  Chief Executive Officer, Director and Principal Executive Officer of
Tombstone Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to my
knowledge, that:

     a)   such Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Tombstone  Technologies,  Inc. for
          the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements
          of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     b)   the  information  contained  in such  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of
          Tombstone  Technologies,  Inc.  for the year ended  December 31, 2008,
          fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Tombstone Technologies, Inc.


Date:  March 30, 2009


                                              /s/John N. Harris
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              John N. Harris, President and
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              (Principal Executive 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.
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0927(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0927(01)

**Council Decision of 22 September 2003 appointing the members of the Advisory Committee of the Euratom Supply Agency **

*
Official Journal C 232 , 27/09/2003 P. 0001 - 0002 *

Council Decision

of 22 September 2003

appointing the members of the Advisory Committee of the Euratom Supply Agency

(2003/C 232/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second and third subparagraphs of Article 54 thereof,

Having regard to Article X of the Statutes of the Euratom Supply Agency(1),

Having regard to Council Decision of 14 June 1999 appointing the members of the Advisory Committee of the Euratom Supply Agency(2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) The term of office of the members of the Advisory Committee of the Euratom Supply Agency expired on 28 March 2003.

(2) The members of the Committee for the period from 29 March 2003 to 28 March 2005 should be appointed, having regard to the nominations submitted by the Governments of the Members States,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The following persons are hereby appointed members of the Advisory Committee of the Euratom Supply Agency:

>TABLE>

Done at Brussels, 22 September 2003.

For the Council

The President

(1) OJ 27, 6.12.1958, p. 534/58. Statutes, as last amended by Decision 95/1/EC/Euratom/ECSC (OJ L 1, 1.1.1995, p. 1).

(2) OJ L 186, 2.7.1999, p. 1.
# L_2011093EN.01003801.xml

| 7.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 93/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 93/38

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2001/548/EC of 9 July 2001 on the setting up of a committee in the area of supplementary pensions

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 196 of 20 July 2001
  )

On page 26, Article 3(2), second indent:

for:

‘four seats for the other EFA member countries (one seat for the European Free Trade Association liaison office and one seat per country involved)’,

read:

‘four seats for the other EEA member countries (one seat for the European Free Trade Association liaison office and one seat per country involved)’.

---
<PAGE>





                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.44a




December 19, 2001

Mr. Burt August
AA&L Associates
c/o Monro Muffler/Brake
200 Holleder Parkway
Rochester, NY 14615

RE:      Agreement between AA&L Associates, L.P. (Landlord) and Monro Muffler/
         Brake, Inc. (Tenant) for premises situate at 2955-2971 Main Street,
         Buffalo, NY [MMB #51]

Dear Burt:

Per our conversation, please be informed that Monro Muffler/Brake, Inc. and
AA&L Associates are interested in formalizing an agreement providing for a five
year option period to extend said term beyond its current expiration date of
June 30, 2007. The rent for said renewal period shall be $3,465.00 per month.

Tenant shall provide to Landlord six (6) months written notice of its intent to
exercise said renewal option. The option period, if exercised, shall run from
July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012.

If this meets with your approval, please sign both copies and return one copy to
my attention.

If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 647-6400 ext. 384.

Yours truly,


Thomas M. Aspenleiter
VP Real Estate

TMA:mc

As evidenced by my signature, I agree to the above terms and conditions.

/s/ Burt August
------------------------------------                          -----------------
Burt August Sr.                                               Date
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.2


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8) pertaining to the Employees' Stock Option Plan of and forms F-3 (File
No. 333-8240, 333-12764 and 333-59548) of I.I.S. Intelligent Information Systems
Limited of our report dated March 13, 2002, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedules of StoreAge Networking Technologies Ltd
included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F of I.I.S. Intelligent Information
Systems Limited) for the year ended December 31, 2001, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

                                                  /s/ Kost, Forer & Gabbay
                                                  KOST, FORER & GABBAY
                                                A member of Ernst & Young Global

Tel-Aviv, Israel
June 26, 2002
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 FFD Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert R. Gerber, the Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Robert R. Gerber
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert R. Gerber
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2004
#### Rico Latrell BURNETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6845

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

David Bernai’d Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF *255VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rico Latrell Burnett appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5)(A) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the order denying relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the motion for an extension of time. *See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,*76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996) (“‘Excusable neglect’ is not easily demonstrated, nor was it meant to be.”). We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, *Burnett v. Clarke,*No. 2:16-cv-00177-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. June 2, 2017). 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*
NUMBER 13

- 13

- 00169

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

STANLEY BRADFORD

W H ITTINGTON

, A ppellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, A ppellee.

On appeal from the 2 nd 25th District Court

of Gonzales County, Texas.



### ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This matter is before the Court on appellant’s “Motion to Abate Appeal and Order

the Trial Co urt to Enter Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” According to

appellant, this matter should be abated and remanded for purposes of conducting a

hearing regarding whether appellant was properly advised regarding the “dangers of2 multiple representatio n.” More than ten days have passed and the State has not filed a

response to this motion.

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to abate. We ABATE this appeal and

REMAND the cause to the trial court for the purposes of conducting a hearing regarding

this issue. The trial court should prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law and

include them in a supplemental clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a

supplemental reporter's re cord of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental

clerk's record and supplemental reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of

this Court on or before the expiration thirty days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

PER C URIAM

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

16th day of Dec ember , 20 13

.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Euro Group of Companies, Inc.
(formerly ICT Technologies, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief
Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

     (1)  The Report of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
          section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act; 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/  Vasilios Koutsobinas
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Vasilios Koutsobinas
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

November 25, 2009
#### Larry Gene HEGGEM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35464

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*545Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

Larry Gene Heggem, Pro Se

Michael C. Held, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, Everett, WA, for Defendants-Appellees .

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Larry Gene Heggem, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force based on an incident that occurred in the Snohomish County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment and its qualified immunity determinations. *Furnace v. Sullivan,*705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013), We reverse and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment on Heggem’s excessive force claim against defendant Eichelberger on the basis of qualified immunity, concluding that it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that lifting Heggem’s legs in connection with a control hold was unconstitutional. However, Heggem presented evidence that despite his compliance and cooperation, Eichelberger violently applied a control hold and forcibly disrobed Heggem causing serious injury. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Heggem, and under any potentially applicable standard, Heggem raised a triable dispute as to whether Ei-chelberger’s use of force was excessive. *See Martinez v. Stanford,*323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment standard applicable to prisoners); *see also Kingsley v. Hendrickson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) (elements of excessive force claim under the Fourteenth Amendment standard applicable to pretrial detainees); *Furnace,*705 F.3d at 1026 (a court reviewing a summary judgment motion must “assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the nonmoving party”). We reverse summary judgment for Eichelberger, and remand for further proceedings as to Heggem’s excessive force claim against defendants Eichelberger, Nicholas and Miller.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Heggem’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18), motion for additional authority in support of claims (Docket Entry No. 79) and request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 26) are denied.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
@noo1 Consumer Exposure AnalogsComments ( )yes, see consumer exp. 

### page 

# cI I ~~ 7- PROPERTY 

# I Submitted ICB-CRSS MP (C) Method/Ref BP (C) 

### 63 P (torr) lip (torr) 

# I ~0.000001 

### f Salt 

# I 1 >5001@ 760 torr Salt 

# I@ 760 torr

- ~~ ~ S-H20 (g/L) S-Org (g/L) 

### Loa 

### Kow 

# RH. Ma 

# I I Log Koc 

# I 

# t ~ L 

### ,@Wl 

# Andm5 mg/L mg/L V Light Absorption (nm)l < > 2901 LogBCF 

# I BCF

SoIven t : H (atm m3/mol) 

### Q3 

# 0X 9- Volatilization (H20)t(112) River 

# 1 I hr Lake 

# I da AOP t(1/2) (hr) lOHl 03 

# 1 Total BIODEG (Linear Prob: (No nI



### i nearPPob7 lsurvey Ult: (survey Prim: STP 

### (Yo Removal) 

# I Tot

# 1 

# I Biod 

# I 1Ads

# 1 Air HYDRO t(1/2) @ pH 7, 25 

### CI da Persistence/ Bioaccumulation 

# 1 ?-3$+- REMOVAL IN WWTIPOTW 

# I v0 Overall 

# 1 0 25 50 

# I 75 

# I( 90 

# 1 ='99 - -_ Sorption Stripping Removal Destruction Biodegradation


### 1 I ,, C.. RATING 1 2 

# --- low moderate extensive moderate low unknown high moderate (neg%gible , unknown complete partial

# I IRATI 

# NGI 1 2 

# I 3 HYDROLYSIS 

# I A. (t(1/2) 

### @ pH 7, 

### 25 C) 

### B. 7 A N AER

## oBI

# c BI

### OD

### EGR-A

### D ATION 

## u Iti mate Primasy <= days weeks months > months <= days weeks months *nths 

# )
<= mins hours days => months <= mins hours days => months Comments: 

# I HYDRO (cia)

# I

~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ____ MIGRATION TO GROUND WATER slow 

# I moderate 

# I rapid Comments: 7 VOLATILIZATION

(t(1/2)w/o sediment SORPTION TO SOIL & SEDIMENT 

# I ,,/ strong 

# I moderate 

# I low Comments: Rivers (hr) negl slow moderate rapid Lakes (da) negl slow modeyate rapid IB. Indirect 

### I negl slow 

# I moderate 

# I rapid Comments: I - 

## PHOTOLYSIS (A. Direct 

# I 

# I negl 

# I slow 

# I moderate 

# I rapid 

# I ATMOSPHERIC 

## 0x1 DATION A. OH negl slow moderate rapid 

### B. 03 ' negl slow moderate rapid 

# I AOP t(1/2) hr 

# I I% c L I*,. INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT

7 P-00-1121c Assessor: Mottl Case Number: r-3b --.? 

# - -.

, .-.-



### .Ir- = (k. INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT 

### ---

. CASE NUMBER: P-00- 1 121C 

### * 

## -- - --- -. A.-' iiqIT.iAL REVIEW EXPOSUREREPORT CASE NUMBER: P-00- 1 12IC

... 

# 6I( '* I'i\IIT!XL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT CASE NUMBERlP-00- 1 121C

. -- Page-? of&)



# 9 t 2 I.b L - a-

t -c Page3 of 

## 15 INITIAL REVIEW EXPO? 'RE REPORT

c

## . ' IT$IJJAL WVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT CASE NUMBER:P-00-1121C - .b --.= -IC

# - )u --

c-

. ..
-. 

### -- 

# 9Page 

### .H> ofB INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT 2 --CaseNumh P-00-1121c Assessor:

## . I’ 

### NTILL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT CASENUMBERiP-00- 1 121C =ee-- --.c .b ---: *u --

.. .*’ 

### JWTIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT CASE NUMBER: P-00- 1 121C It ----.lk 

# - 3 ----*ur E INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT .L-h--cCase Number: P-00-1121c Assessor: __c r' Q.2& INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT CASE NUMBER:POOI 121C 

# - * -___ r*u

,E;;iT-f*AL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT CASE NUMBER: PO01 12IC

1- 

# - J --. -k.ll

### I
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6234 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for penalties for the 

sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a member of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Mr. COOK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for penalties for the sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a 

member of the Armed Forces. 

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 ‘‘Private Corrado Piccoli 

5 Purple Heart Preservation Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The Purple Heart medal solemnly recog9 nizes the great and sometimes ultimate sacrifice of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6234 IH

1 American servicemembers like Private Corrado 

2 Piccoli. 

3 (2) The Purple Heart medal holds a place of 

4 honor as the national symbol of this sacrifice and 

5 deserves special protections. 

6 SEC. 3. PENALTY FOR SALE OF PURPLE HEARTS AWARDED 

7 TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

8 Subsection (a) of section 704 of title 18, United 

9 States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.— 

11 ‘‘(1) PENALTY.—Whoever knowingly purchases, 

12 attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, 

13 ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates 

14 of receipt for, manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, 

15 advertises for sale, trades, barters, or exchanges for 

16 anything of value any decoration or medal author17 ized by Congress for the armed forces of the United 

18 States, or any of the service medals or badges 

19 awarded to the members of such forces, or the rib20 bon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration 

21 or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except 

22 when authorized under regulations made pursuant to 

23 law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not 

24 more than six months, or both. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6234 IH

1 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON REGULATIONS.—Regula2 tions referred to in paragraph (1) may not authorize 

3 the sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a member 

4 of the Armed Forces or former member of the 

5 Armed Forces by the Secretary of the military de6 partment concerned.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS