alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Lamont PRETTYMAN, a.k.a. Roy Lamont Daily, a.k.a. Roy Daily Prettyman, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50313

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

NOVEMBER 17, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Benjamin Lichtman, Assistant U.S., DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Richard A. Levy, Esquire, Torrance, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Roy Lamont Prettyman appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for counterfeiting obligations of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Prettyman contends that the district court violated Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as his constitutional rights to due process and to be present at sentencing, by sentencing him in absentia. The government argues that this appeal is barred by the appeal waiver contained in the parties’ plea agreement. We review de novo. *See United States v. Bibler,*495 F.3d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not clearly err when it found that Prettyman was voluntarily absent from the sentencing hearing and, therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Prettyman in absentia. *See United States v. Ornelas,*828 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2016). We, therefore, affirm with respect to the procedure used to impose the sentence. Because Prettyman’s sentence was not unlawful, we dismiss pursuant to the valid appeal waiver. *See id.*at 1023.

Prettyman’s motion to take judicial notice of a document showing his arrest by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department is denied because that arrest is irrelevant to the issues on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

       CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER*

      Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted), Dr. Sergio Magistri, Chief Executive Officer of InVision
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), and Ross Mulholland, the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

      1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
            June 27, 2004, and to which this Certification is attached as
            Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
            Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the
5th day of August, 2004.

                                               /s/ Sergio Magistri
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Sergio Magistri, Ph.D.
                                               Chief Executive Officer

                                               /s/ Ross Mulholland
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Ross Mulholland
                                               Chief Financial Officer

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to InVision Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by InVision
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

*  This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is being
   furnished to, and shall not be deemed filed with, the SEC or otherwise
   subject to the liability of that Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
   1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference
   into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
   or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or
   after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation
   language contained in such filing.
#### Michael B. DORSEY, Appellant v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and Sherman Lankford, Appellees

No. 17-7060

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: December 20, 2017

Michael B. Dorsey, Pro Se

BEFORE: Griffith and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed March 22, 2017, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s claim against the District of Columbia Superior Court because “federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review judicial decisions by state and District of Columbia courts.” Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Dismissal of the claim against appellee Lankford was also proper. The district courts of the United States are “courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). The district courts have jurisdiction in “federal question” cases, i.e., civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and in “diversity” cases, Le., civil actions between citizens of different states or between United States citizens and foreign citizens or foreign states, provided the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In this case, appellant failed to plead facts to establish federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *23See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 47

To provide for a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 20, 1996

Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. FORD) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To provide for a Joint Congressional Committee on

Inaugural Ceremonies.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That a Joint Congressional Committee on In3 augural Ceremonies consisting of 3 Senators and 3 Rep4 resentatives, to be appointed by the President of the Sen5 ate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, re6 spectively, is authorized to make the necessary arrange7 ments for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice

8 President-elect of the United States on the 20th day of

9 January 1997.

Æ
**Exhibit 15.1**
July 7, 2004
Board of Directors and StockholdersParty City CorporationRockaway, New Jersey
We have made a review, in accordance withstandards established by the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States), of the unaudited interim financialinformation of Party City Corporation and Subsidiary for thequarter ended September 27, 2003 and September 28,2002, as indicated in our report dated November 5, 2003(June 30, 2004 as to the effects of the restatementdiscussed in Note 11) (which report includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the restatement of the condensedconsolidated financial statements); because we did not performan audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.
We are aware that our report referred to above,which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/Afor the quarter ended September 27, 2003, is incorporatedby reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-75078,333-65632 and 333-19473 on Form S-8 of Party CityCorporation.
We also are aware that the aforementioned report,pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933,is not considered a part of the Registration Statement preparedor certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certifiedby an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7and 11 of that Act.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
New York, New York
Customer Service Hotline: 1 - 800 - 438 - 2474 UNITED ST AT ES ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION A GENCY REGION III 1650 A rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 - 2029 January 20, 2010 Honorable Collin P. O’Mara , Secretary Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Cont rol 89 Kings Highway Dover, Delaware 19901 Dear Secretary

O’Mara : On November 17, 2009 , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Delaware State I mplementation Plan (SI P) from the Department of Natural Resources and Enviro nmental Control

. The SI P revision pertains to a plan entitled “Regulation No.1142

– Specific Emission Control Requirements.” EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively

and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Pr oposed Rulemaking. If members of your staff have an y questions, they may direct them to Mr. Gregory Becoat , at (215) 814

- 2036. He is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerel y,
/s/ David Arnold, Acting Director Air Protection Division cc: Ali Mirzakhalili, Administrator Air Quali ty

Management Section
Exhibit 10.15


Consent of Independent Public Accountants

We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia
Vale do Rio Doce of our report dated January 30, 2002, relating to the
Financial Statements of de Vila Velha S.A. for the years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2000, which is included in such Annual Report.


/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Vitoria, Brazil, June 27, 2002
#### Robert A. SESSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim Young KIM, World Bank; Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, and John Doe, Ogden Utah Tax Office, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1174

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed November 20, 2017

(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00222-LTB) (D. Colorado)

Robert A. Session, Pro Se

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Michael R. Murphy, Circuit Judge

After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the adjudication 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.

Proceeding *pro se,*Appellant Robert A. Session, a Colorado state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of the complaint he filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to the complaint, Session also filed a document titled, “United States District Court Judicial Review of a Form 8082 and Motion to Specify.” A United States Magistrate Judge ordered Session to file an amended complaint, clarifying the claims being asserted. Session filed the amended complaint on April 21, 2017. The district court dismissed the action for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court concluded Session’s complaint, even if construed liberally, contained vague, and con-clusory factual allegations” and did not provide fair notice to the Defendants.

Session’s appellate brief, like his complaint, is an incoherent jumble of constitutional, criminal, civil, and administrative law concepts. There is no clear argument as to why the district court’s judgment should be reversed. Having reviewed the record and Session’s appellate brief, this court concludes Session’s appeal is “without merit in that it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” *Thompson v. Gibson,*289 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2002). We, thus, dismiss the appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We deny Session’s motion to proceed *informa pauperis*pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)1 and remind him of his responsibility for the immediate payment of any unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee.

*

 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.

1

. *See Rollins v. Fisch,*696 Fed.Appx. 856, 859 n.3 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished disposition cited only for its persuasive value).
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 25 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 144 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 144

   To express the sense of the Senate that, by the end of the 104th 
Congress, the Senate should pass health care legislation to provide all 
Americans with coverage that is at least as good as the Senate provides 
                              for itself.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 29 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

 Mr. Wellstone (for himself and Mr. Feingold) submitted the following 
resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor 
                          and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To express the sense of the Senate that, by the end of the 104th 
Congress, the Senate should pass health care legislation to provide all 
Americans with coverage that is at least as good as the Senate provides 
                              for itself.
Whereas the American people want and deserve the same high quality health care 
        as that received by Members of Congress;
Whereas 41,000,000 Americans are uninsured, more than 11,000,000 of whom are 
        children;
Whereas children have accounted for the largest proportion of the increase in 
        the number of uninsured individuals in recent years;
Whereas the percentage of working people who receive health insurance from their 
        employer has dipped to its lowest point since the early 1980's;
Whereas thousands of the Nation's smallest businesses continue to find the cost 
        of health insurance out of reach;
Whereas many employers who do provide coverage for their employees have been 
        forced to reduce benefits and increase employee cost-sharing 
        requirements in order to continue to provide insurance;
Whereas medical inflation continues to grow at double the general inflation 
        rate;
Whereas choice of health plan and provider is becoming increasingly limited for 
        the vast majority of Americans;
Whereas many American families continue to be subject to discriminatory 
        insurance practices and denied coverage due to preexisting health 
        conditions;
Whereas the proposed $450,000,000,000 in medicare and medicaid cuts may lead to 
        increasing numbers of uninsured, higher uncompensated health care costs, 
        and severe cost shifting to the private sector; and
Whereas the status quo is unacceptable and the American public continues to 
        believe that major reform of our country's health care system should be 
        a top priority for Congress: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that, by the end of 
the 104th Congress, the Senate should pass health care legislation to 
provide all Americans with coverage that is at least as good as the 
Senate provides for itself.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1996 FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF SMARTSERV ONLINE,  INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001005698
<NAME>                        SMARTSERV ONLINE, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                          1,237,851
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     170,392
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       185,436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,593,679
<PP&E>                            546,243
<DEPRECIATION>                    106,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,159,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             627,439
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           36,950
<OTHER-SE>                      1,494,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,159,213
<SALES>                           297,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  362,294
<CGS>                           1,020,067
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,020,067
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,440,899
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  5,708
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (2,104,380)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (2,104,380)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (2,104,380)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.57)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Party City Corporation(the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended March 27, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and
(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ NANCY PEDOT  Nancy Pedot *Chief Executive Officer*   Dated: May 17, 2004  
     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany theReport pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.