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

No. 16-10518

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 8, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed August 21, 2017

*670Garth R. Backe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USNMI — Office of the US Attorney, Saipan, MP, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mark Jacob Werksman, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Mark J. Werksman, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: CALLAHAN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FABER,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable David A. Faber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Kwon Woo Sung (“Sung”) appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of interference with flight crew members and attendants in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

“We review a district judge’s sentence for abuse of discretion.” *United States v. Blinkinsop,*606 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010). This “requires determining: (1) whether there was procedural error in formulating the sentence, and (2) whether the sentence is substantively reasonable.” *Id.*

While now advisory, the Sentencing Guidelines “should be the starting point and the initial benchmark” for sentencing determinations. *Gall v. United States, 552*U.S. 38, 49, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Reversible procedural error exists where a district court “use[s] the statutory maximum rather than the guidelines range as the baseline for sentencing.” *United States v. Burgum,*633 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2011).

Although here the district court mentioned the zero to six month Guidelines range several times during sentencing, the record indicates that it used 49 U.S.C. § 46504’s statutory maximum — and not the Guidelines — as the baseline for sentencing. The district court repeatedly stated that its “initial thought was to sentence the defendant to ten years’ imprisonment.” Further, it explained that it had “thrown out the sentencing guidelines,” and was “sentencing [Sung] under the statute.” Accordingly, because the district court did not use the Guidelines as the baseline for sentencing, it committed reversible procedural error.

Where reversible procedural error exists, we “remand for resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f), without reaching the question of whether the sentence *671as a whole is reasonable in light of [18 U.S.C.] § 3653(a).” *United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1280 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not reach the sentence’s substantive reasonableness.1

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

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

1

. We also do not reach Sung’s contention that the district court erred in finding him ineligible for home confinement under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50638

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DARRELL LENARD BATES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:93-CR-181-1

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darrell Lenard Bates appeals the denial of an innominate pleading he filed

in a criminal proceeding that has long been closed. The pleading did not concern

the criminal case. Bates failed to identify any jurisdictional basis for his

pleading, and he failed to make any coherent argument or to state any

cognizable claim. Because his appeal fails to identify any legal basis for relief,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 14, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50638

2

it is frivolous, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983), and is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are DENIED.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting;
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
controls over financial reporting.
 Dated: December 22, 2009
    By:
    /s/ David Bruce HongDavid Bruce HongChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001007020
<NAME> XXXXXXX
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,286
<SECURITIES>                                     1,743
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                       282
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,399
<PP&E>                                           5,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,297
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,451
<SALES>                                         30,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,576
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,045
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,699
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,346
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,346
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Artis Ryan MILLER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40797 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 15, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Artis Ryan Miller, Pro Se

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Artis Ryan Miller, federal prisoner # 37382-177, was convicted by a jury of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 kilograms of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana. He moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, in which he sought a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Miller argues that the distinct court erred by failing to correctly determine drug quantity at his original sentencing and should not have relied upon that erroneous determination to deny his § 3582(c)(2) motion. He also argues that the district court erred by denying relief based upon the determination that he obstructed justice, which was erroneous when made at his original sentencing.

By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Miller challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into a litigant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

*432Miller’s challenge to issues that were resolved at his original sentencing hearing lacks merit, as issues that relate to original sentencing determinations may not be re-litigated in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009). As the district court’s decision reflects consideration of Miller’s motion and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

This appeal does not present a nonfrivo-lous issue. *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 220. Miller’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 6th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

“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.
No. 11-10218.

#### Mercer *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, David M Long, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, of Biofield Corp.
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-SSB of the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
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 17, 2005
                                       By: /s/ DAVID M. LONG
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           David M. Long, Jr., M.D., Ph.D.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)

                                       23
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6199 

To require the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

to complete a study on the human health implications of per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in drinking water. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Director of the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention to complete a study on the human health 

implications of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

(PFAS) contamination in drinking water. 

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 ‘‘Investing in Testing 

5 Act of 2016’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6199 IH

1 SEC. 2. STUDY BY CDC ON HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF PER2 AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES CON3 TAMINATION IN DRINKING WATER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Centers for 

5 Disease Control and Prevention shall— 

6 (1) not later than 60 days after the date of en7 actment of this Act, commence a study on the 

8 human health implications of per- and polyfluoroal9 kyl substances (PFAS) contamination in drinking 

10 water; and 

11 (2) not later than 2 years and 60 days after the 

12 date of enactment of this Act— 

13 (A) complete such study; and 

14 (B) submit a report to the Congress on the 

15 results of such study. 

16 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—To carry 

17 out this Act, there is authorized to be appropriated 

18 $15,000,000. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
file:///G|/

... 11,%202012%20and%20%20Div%2012/Federal%20Register%20-%20Proposal/Comments/EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0494-0006.html [3/15/2013 3:35:08 PM] 

# PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: March 14, 2013 Received: February 15, 2013 Status: Posted Posted: March 13, 2013 Tracking No. 1jx-83p9-l4nq Comments Due: March 13, 2013 Submission Type: Web Docket: EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0494 OR 2012 Heat Smart Program and Misc revisions Comment On: EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0494-0001 Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oregon; Heat Smart Program and Enforcement Procedures Document: EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0494-0006 Comment on FR Doc # 2013-02964 

## Submitter Information

General Comment I agree with Oregon's proposal and the EPA's subsequent revisions that they propose to Oregon's State Implementation Plan. Air quality is a huge priority that not many people pay attention to and what the state is doing in regards to removing uncertified wood stoves and solid fuel heating devices (when homeowners sell) will only further and help air quality control. Broadening the rule to be statewide will create a larger area that reduces smoke and potential hazards that can come from the burning in the wood stove. One of the revisions to be made by the state is to add limitations to what can be burnt. This can also bring more quality to the air. The changes that they are proposing to be made are in line with the CAA, which is one of the best environmental laws that the country has had. The sweeping legislation has called for limitations on emissions and to achieve quality air and ozone protections. Approval of the Heat Smart program is essential and may encourage other states to act under the same intent.
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 City Language Exchange, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Jonathan White, President and Chief Financial Officer 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 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:
      March 20, 2009
                
                /s/ Jonathan WhiteJonathan
      WhitePresident
      and Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tomas MORENO-TURRUBIATES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40283 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tomas Moreno-Turrubiates, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

*839PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tomas Moreno-Turrubiates has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Moreno-Turrubiates has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with, counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*6th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM ARTHUR MAXWELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1432

[August 17, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 312012CF001531A.

William Arthur Maxwell, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-C24 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C24

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b)  To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 25, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for RBS Commercial Funding Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2014-C25

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of December 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■ ■ ■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★

● ● ●

●
#### Nashid PORTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carlton JOYNER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7362

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

Nashid Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nashid Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failing to exhaust his state remedies. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 15, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on September 22, 2017. Because Porter failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
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 Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Emerald Dairy Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Yang Yong Shan, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  August
14, 2009





By:
                  /s/
      Yang Yong ShanName:
                  Yang
      Yong ShanTitle:
                  Chairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal
      Executive
Officer)