alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-41269

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RENE COLON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CR-466-6

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rene Colon pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2. The district court sentenced Colon to 12 months and 

one day of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. It also 

imposed a $25,000 fine and ordered restitution of $50,000. Colon argues on 

appeal that the district court reversibly erred in imposing a $25,000 fine given 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 19, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-41269 Document: 00514648275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2018
No. 17-41269

2

the purported determination in his presentence report (PSR) that his ability to 

pay a fine was limited.

Colon did not argue before the district court, as he now does on appeal, 

that the fine imposed is improper because it is greater than the PSR’s 

purported fine recommendation, nor did he lodge a specific objection to the 

$25,000 amount of the fine. Because the district court did not have the 

opportunity to address the “gravamen” of Colon’s argument on appeal, review 

is for plain error. See United States v. Garcia-Perez, 779 F.3d 278, 282 (5th 

Cir. 2015); see also United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 2011).

Relying primarily on United States v. Fair, 979 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1992), 

Colon argues that the district court improperly disregarded the PSR’s 

recommendation on a fine. In Fair, the district court imposed a $20,000 fine 

even though the PSR indicated that the defendant did not have the ability to 

pay a fine and recommended against imposing a fine. Id. at 1040. This court 

vacated the fine relying on prior caselaw holding that it is “error for the district 

court to adopt the PSR, and then depart from its recommendation on fines and 

cost of incarceration, absent any reasons for such a departure.” Id. at 1041-42.

Here, unlike Fair, the PSR affirmatively determined that Colon had the 

ability to pay some level of a fine. Though the PSR suggested that a fine 

“possibly lower” than the applicable guidelines range would be appropriate, 

this is far from an affirmative recommendation of a fine below the guidelines 

range as Colon argues. The $25,000 fine is also within the guidelines range of 

$10,000 to $95,000 and is therefore presumptively reasonable. See United 

States v. Pacheco-Alvarado, 782 F.3d 213, 221 (5th Cir. 2015). The district 

court did not plainly err in imposing a fine in Colon’s case. See Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-41269 Document: 00514648275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2018
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41234-41235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17654]

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

 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

DOE/NSF High Energy Physics Advisory Panel

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Science.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF High Energy 
Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). The Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these 
meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, October 27, 2011; 9 a.m.-6 p.m. and Friday, October 
28, 2011; 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Hotel Palomar, 2121 P Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kogut, Executive Secretary; High 
Energy Physics Advisory Panel; U.S. Department of Energy; SC-25/
Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-1298

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance on a continuing 
basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation 
on scientific priorities within the field of high energy physics 
research.
    Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following:

Thursday, October 27, 2011 and Friday, October 28, 2011

     Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics 
Program.
     Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary 
Particle Physics Program.
     Reports on and Discussions of Topics of General Interest 
in High Energy Physics.
     Public Comment (10-minute rule).
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you 
would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do 
so either before

[[Page 41235]]

or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements 
regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact John 
Kogut, 301-903-1298 or John.Kogut@science.doe.gov. You must make your 
request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the 
meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled 
oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Panel will 
conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available on the U.S. 
Department of Energy's Office of High Energy Physics Advisory Panel 
website.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on July 7, 2011.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-17654 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

NELSON MARTINEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 881 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of June, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,421,338
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               59,733,080
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             122,318,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,235,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               122,318,229
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               211,324
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,830,284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,118,507
<INCOME-TAX>                                   465,297
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            653,210
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
420 P.2d 297

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Johnny D. KERR, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 75.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Nov. 22, 1966.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Lloyd D. Brumage, Pinal County Atty., Florence, for appellee.

Carl Moring, Coolidge, for appellant.

KRUCKER, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Johnny D. Kerr, was found guilty of escape from the Arizona State Prison, a felony, after a trial by jury in the Superior Court of Pinal County, and was sentenced to a term of not less than three nor more than five years from the date of completion of the sentence he was then serving in the Arizona State Prison.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal in propria persona and the trial court appointed counsel (other than counsel who represented him at the trial), to represent him on appeal. Counsel has advised this Court, in writing, that he has searched the record, including the trial transcript and the minutes of the proceedings below, and has been unable to find grounds on which an appeal could be based. Therefore, he has moved this Court to allow submission of the appeal on the record. Accordingly, we have searched the entire record for fundamental error as required by A.R.S. § 13-1715. State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233, 393 P.2d 921 (1964); State v. Gilreath, 100 Ariz. 5, 409 P.2d 713 (1966) ; State v. Dunbar, 4 Ariz.App. 100, 417 P.2d 734 (1966).

The record disclosed that appellant, at the time set fot arraignment, was fully advised of his right to counsel. He expressed his desire that counsel be appointed to represent him, whereupon the court appointed counsel. Arraignment was continued to a subsequent date, at which time appellant entered a plea' of not guilty and waived the 60-day statutory requirement for trial. The case was consolidated for trial with another case wherein another prison inmate was cha'rged with the same offense.

At the trial, the State introduced evidence that both defendants were inmates of the State Prison on the date of the alleged offense; that three prisoners, part of a road gang, were discovered missing’; that upon discovery of the prisoners’ absence from the work crew, several deputies were dispatched to hunt for them; and that the three escapees were subsequently, within a few hours, captured and taken into custody. The defendants were identified as being two of the three escapees.

It is evident that the jury had a sufficient factual basis to arrive at its verdict. We are satisfied that appellate counsel has made a conscientious investigation and agree, from our review of the record, that there are no grounds for a successful appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

HATHAWAY and MOLLOY, JJ., com cur.
# L_2008264EN.01S00301.xml

| 3.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 264/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 264/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         101,016
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         394,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 509,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        371,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       29
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   509,793
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,367
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,262
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,179)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,083
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,083
<EPS-BASIC>                                    5.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  5.32



</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2115

___________ James Wirth, * * Appellant, * * v. * * College of the Ozarks, a Missouri * Corporation; James P. Keeter; Robert * Plaster; Harry L. Basore; John Q

. * Appeal from the United States Hammons; Williams B. Todd; Jack W. * District Court for the Western Justus; Joe Basore; Stan Kroenke ; * District of Missouri. Albert J. O'Brien; Robert Anderson; * Arthur Cahill; Alice Edwards; Donald * [UNPUBLISHED] Wray; Gary Cowherd; Larry Walther; * Steven Plaster; Mary McCleary-Posner; * Jerry Davis; Kenton C. Olson; Suzann e * Martin; Larry Cockrum; Teresa Geisler ; * Paul Gianoli; Jerry Esdon; Dou g * Switzer; Terry Hunt; Dana McMahan, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 3, 2000 Filed: March 9, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________-2-

PER CURIAM. After his 1997 termination from a tenured professorship at the College of the Ozarks, James Wirth brought this action against the College and many individuals alleging several claims, including breach of contract and religious discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the contract and disc rimination claims, dismissed the remaining claims, and awarded the defendants attorney's fees and costs. Wirth appeals these rulings. Having carefully reviewed Wirth's arguments, the record, the law, and the district court's analysis, we conclude the district court properly rejected Wirth's claims and properly awarded the defendants fees and costs. We have nothing to add to the district court's thorough opinions, and thus affirm without further comment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.2

PROTALIX BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of Protalix BioTherapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Yossi Maimon, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|                                                       
|Date: August 15, 2007                                  
|/s/ Yossi Maimon                                       
|                                                       
|Yossi Maimon
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          $4,690
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         $17,112
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    $0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    $0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    $18,286
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              $0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                $0
<LOANS>                                       $226,617
<ALLOWANCE>                                   $(1,029)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                $281,068
<DEPOSITS>                                    $202,757
<SHORT-TERM>                                    $7,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             $3,518
<LONG-TERM>                                    $28,577
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               $0
<PREFERRED>                                         $0
<COMMON>                                           $28
<OTHER-SE>                                     $39,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                $281,068
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 $9,535
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 $585
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  $351
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               $10,471
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              $4,816
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              $5,838
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           $4,633
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     $225
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  $2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 $3,764
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 $1,544
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      $1,544
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     $0
<CHANGES>                                           $0
<NET-INCOME>                                      $945
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  $0.035
<LOANS-NON>                                       $438
<LOANS-PAST>                                      $532
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  $333
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     $0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  $840
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      $47
<RECOVERIES>                                       $11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               $1,029
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                $6
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 $0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         $1,023
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code.

August10, 2007

CharlesT. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern CaliforniaBancorp, Inc. certifies:

a.               thatthis periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.              thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc.
|   | /s/ Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   | Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer         |
|   | and President                   |

 

----
#### Hugo Israel CAHUEC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gregory SMITH; Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 14-15593

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 1, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed December 1, 2017

Ryan Norwood, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan Michael Kirsh-baum, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant

Matthew S. Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV—Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, Heidi Parry Stern, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas) Las Vegas, NV, for Respondents-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hugo Cahuec, a Nevada state prisoner, appealed the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition on grounds of failure to exhaust and untimeliness. We granted Petitioner’s motion to stay appellate proceedings because his threshold actual innocence claim was then pending before the Nevada state courts. The Nevada Supreme Court has now held that the evidence he presented was not reliable and affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief.

We have requested, received, and reviewed supplemental briefing from the parties as to the current status of the appeal. The actual innocence claim is now exhausted and the district court has not yet considered it in light of the record developed in state court while this appeal has been pending. We have therefore ordered this appeal submitted on the briefs. We vacate the district court’s order denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, and remand for the district court to con*593sider the petitioner’s claims in the first instance.

We also GRANT the pending motion to file the final volume VI of the joint supplemental excerpts of record under seal.

This panel shall retain jurisdiction of any further appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Inovalon Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith R. Dunleavy, M.D., the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company,
certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ KEITH R. DUNLEAVY, M.D. Keith R. Dunleavy, M.D. Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


Date:
March 31, 2015

---



QuickLinks