alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Markell Jay HAMILTON, also known as Poo Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1378

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 11, 2017

Filed: January 25, 2018

*426Dan Chatham, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Markell Jay Hamilton, Pro Se

John D. Jacobsen, Jacobsen & Johnson, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Markell Hamilton directly appeals after the he pled guilty to a drug charge, and the district court sentenced him to an above-Guidelines-range prison term. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hamilton has filed a pro se brief, arguing, as relevant, that the district court plainly erred in calculating his criminal history score by including his Illinois conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, because a portion of the relevant statute had been ruled unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit.

After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we vacate Hamilton’s sentence and remand for resentencing for the district court to consider Hamilton’s criminal-history argument in the first instance. We express no opinion as to the merits of this argument, and we note that it is unclear from the record whether Hamilton was convicted under a portion of the statute that has been ruled unconstitutional. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.
```
      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit





No. 98-1037

                   KOMEZ & CHANTHA YIN HANSEN,

                     Petitioners, Appellants,

                                v.

                COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                      Respondent, Appellee.



                   ON APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF
                  THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
                                
               [HON. MARY ANN COHEN, CHIEF JUDGE]
                                


                             Before
                                
                      Selya, Circuit Judge,
                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                


     Albert Newell on brief for appellants.
     Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, Tamara W.
Ashford and Teresa E. McLaughlin, Attorneys, Tax Division,
Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.
            
      
    
    July 1, 1998
    
    
    
    
             Per Curiam.  Essentially for the reasons stated by
    the tax court in its order of dismissal for lack of
    jurisdiction, appellants' petition properly was dismissed as
    untimely under 26 U.S.C. � 6213(a).  We are not persuaded by
    appellants' argument that the 1994 notice of deficiency was
    rescinded.
             Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
```
#### MYA SARAY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ibrahim DABES, dba Dabes Egyptian Imports, Defendant *682Alla Allabadie, dba World Smoke Shop, dba Shisha Center, Defendant-Appellee

2017-1044

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

January 10, 2018

Michael Keith Blankenship, Da Vinci’s Notebook, LLC, Bristow, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

John E. Lord, One LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, argued for defendant-appellee.

(Lourie, Wallach, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-1703

NILDA M. SALDANA-SANCHEZ; RAFAEL DELGADO-MESTRE; JUAN NIEVESSANTIAGO; MIGUEL RAMOS-CRUZ; SINFORIANO CASTILLO-GARCIA; JULIO

C. MOJICA-UBILES; MIGUEL A. OCASIO-SANTOS; MARGARITA POUPARTFONTANEZ; HILDA TORRES-PENA; MINERVA PACHOT-RIVERA; JOSE L.

ORTIZ-ORTIZ; ZULMA RIVERA-ORTIZ; ANGEL L. RODRIGUEZ-LAZU; LUZ R.

DIAZ-MORALES; JOSE L. BAEZ-RODRIGUEZ; JOSE IVAN CASTILLO-ORTIZ,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

LUZ M. ORTIZ-QUINTANA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JULIO CESAR LOPEZ-GERENA, Mayor of the Municipality of

Humacao; RAMON VEGA-SOSA,

Defendants-Appellees,

MARGARITA GONZALEZ-VAZQUEZ; RAUL FERRER

Defendants.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 12, 2001, is

amended as follows:

On page 9, after the word “dismissed” at the end of the

page, add a new footnote 10, reading:

Dismissal was sought by the plaintiffs on the ground that the

issues presented in the second appeal duplicated those in the

first, and was granted, without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R.

App. P. 42(b). Although the dismissal of the second appeal
precludes our direct review of the denial of reconsideration,

there has been no suggestion that the dismissal affects our

ability to rely on the district court's written opinion --

issued in connection with the second appeal -- as setting out

the court's reasons for granting the protective order in the

first instance.

On page 12, line 19, strike the phrase “and later denial

of reconsideration.”

On page 12, line 21, replace “these orders” with “this

order” in both instances, and replace “were” with “was.”

On page 12, line 21, replace “'final decisions'” with “a

'final decision.'”
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-543V

Filed: February 19, 2016

Not for Publication

*************************************

KEVIN McERLEAN , *

* Petitioner, *

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

*

************************************* Donald M. Gerstein, Cheyenne, WY, for petitioner. Lara A. Englund, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On February 19, 2016 , the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to settle this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner alleges that he suffered from winged scapula that was caused by his receipt of influenza (“flu”) vaccine o n or about Octob er 20,

2011 . He further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer winged scapula or any other injury. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to r esolve this matter informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’ s action in this case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ website, in accordance with the E- Government Act of 2002

, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federa l Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services)

. . Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privil eged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete such information prior to the document’ s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall delete such material from public access. Damages decision based on stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine; winged scapulaThe undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby adopts the parties’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of $200,000.00 , representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa -15(a) (2012 ). The award shall be in the form of a check for $200,000.00 made payable to petitioner

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.

2
#### Matthew Ryley CORZINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Adam Paul LAXALT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16605

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 26, 2017

Matthew Ryley Corzine, Pro Se

Kathleen Megan Brady, Esquire, Attorney, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Carson City), Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

*380Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges,

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Matthew Ryley Corzine appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of residency requirements for sex offenders under Nevada law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. *Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco,*746 F.3d 963, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Corzine’s request for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the enforcement of statutory residency requirements because Corzine failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim alleging that the imposition of lifetime supervision conditions violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. *See*U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 3; *Jackson,*746 F.3d at 958 (plaintiff seeldng preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest)..

We lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Corzine’s claims because the district court’s order did not dispose of the action as to all claims between the parties. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Prellwitz v. Sisto,*657 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011) (appellate jurisdiction is limited to final orders disposing of all claims between parties).

Appellees’ motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. certify that:

1.         I have read this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB ofNorthern California Bancorp, Inc.;

2.         Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

3.         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in thisquarterly report;

4.         The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant andhave:

a)              designed such disclosure controls and procedures toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period (the “EvaluationDate”); and

c)              presented in this quarterly report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.         The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee or registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)              all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and

6.         The registrant’s other certifying officer and I haveindicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes ininternal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internalcontrols subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including anycorrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.
| Date: May 11, 2007 | /s/ Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |   |
|--------------------|---------------------------------|--------|
|               | Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|               | Chairman of the Board &     |
|               | Chief Executive Officer         |

 

1

----
<PAGE>
41                                                                     Form 10-Q
                                  Exhibit 31.1

                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Patricia F. Russo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucent
Technologies Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Lucent Technologies
Inc. (the "registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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 report is being prepared;

b) 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; and

c) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.




Date: August 13, 2003

/s/ Patricia F. Russo
------------------------------------
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 165

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Government of Israel should

extradite Samuel Sheinbein to the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 1, 1997

Mrs. MORELLA submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Government

of Israel should extradite Samuel Sheinbein to the United States.

Whereas Samuel Sheinbein is a legal resident of Montgomery

County, Maryland, and a citizen of the United States;

Whereas Samuel Sheinbein has been charged in Montgomery

County, Maryland, with the first-degree murder of

Alfredo Enrique Tello, Jr.;

Whereas Samuel Sheinbein fled American justice and has

since been detained by the Government of Israel; and

Whereas the Government of Israel may prosecute Samuel

Sheinbein for the murder of Alfredo Enrique Tello, Jr.,

rather than extradite him to the United States: Now,

therefore, be it
2

•HCON 165 IH

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) Montgomery County, Maryland, is the most

4 appropriate venue for any prosecution of Samuel

5 Sheinbein for the murder of Alfredo Enrique Tello,

6 Jr.; and

7 (2) the Government of Israel should undertake

8 every effort under law to assure that Samuel

9 Sheinbein is extradited to the United States.

Æ
Order filed, January 10, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00808

- CR

____________ TRAVOY RAMON HOLLIE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. 1326496



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due December 27, 2012

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Becau se the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Louise Steckler , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 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 Onyx Acceptance Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
John W. Hall, President, CEO and Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ JOHN W. HALName: John W. HallTitle: President, CEO and Principal Executive OfficerDate: November 12, 2004
 This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
and not for any other purpose. 1




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32 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 Onyx Acceptance Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Don P. Duffy, EVP, CFO and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ DON P. DUFFYName: Don P. DuffyTitle: Executive Vice President,CFO and Principal Financial OfficerDate: November 12, 2004
  This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
and not for any other purpose. 2
H. Con. Res. 262 Agreed to May 13, 1998

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF D.C. SPECIAL OLYMPICS

LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN THROUGH CAPITOL

GROUNDS.

On May 29, 1998, or on such other date as the Speaker of

the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and

Administration of the Senate may jointly designate, the 1998 District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run

(in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘event’’) may be run through

the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special Olympics

torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics summer games

at Gallaudet University in the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be

necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITIONS.

Nothing in this resolution may be construed to waive the

applicability of the prohibitions established by section 4 of the
H. Con. Res. 262—2

Act of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning

sales, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.