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

No. 15

- 11080 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JONATHAN BERNARD SMITH , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 148

- 1

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant

- Appellant Jonathan Bernard Smith appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He complains that the district court erred when it increas e d h is offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug

- related premises

. Our review is for clear error. See United States v. Trujillo , 50 2 F.3d 353, 356 (5th Cir. 2007)

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 5, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-11080 Document: 00513578262 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2016No. 15

- 11080

2 Smith contends that the court erred in finding that drug distribution was one of h is primary or principal uses of the premises because he did not have a possessory interest in the premises or distribute drugs from inside, or control access to, the home. We nee d not decide this question because any error was harmless.
T he district court stated that it would impose the same sentence regardless of whether it was correct regarding the premises enhancement. The district court explained that its sentence was based on Smith’s cooperation and the fact that he intended to engage in violence by robbing an undercover agent during a drug transaction

. The court further explained that the sentence was appropriate to provide just punishment, to protect the public, and to pr ovide deterrence. In light of the foregoing, any error was harmless. See United States v. Gutierrez

- Mendez , 752 F.3d 418, 430 (5th Cir. 2014)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-11080 Document: 00513578262 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2016
S95A0292.

#### FAVORS v. THE STATE.

(457 SE2d 565)

Decided May 30, 1995.

*Michael R. Schumacher,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Nancy A. Grace, Leonora Grant, Assistant District Attorneys, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael D. Groves, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

Hunstein, Justice.

Appellant, Rodriquez Cordell Favors, was convicted of murder and two counts of armed robbery.1 He appeals and we affirm.

1. Viewed to support the verdict, the evidence at trial established that appellant, accompanied by co-defendant Edward Weston, followed a Chevrolet Blazer owned and driven by the victim, Derrick Young, for the purpose of stealing the vehicle. After Young stopped the Blazer in a driveway, appellant got out of his car, pointed a .22 caliber semi-automatic handgun at Herbert Minor, Young’s passenger, and told him to get on the ground. Appellant entered the passenger side of the Blazer and ordered Young out of the car. Appellant shot and killed Young as Young reached for his keys. Minor ran to a nearby house as appellant and Weston drove off. Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found appellant guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. Appellant’s contention that he was unconstitutionally denied access to certain information compiled by, or available to, the prosecution is without merit. *Pennsylvania v. Ritchie,*480 U. S. 39 (107 SC 989, 94 LE2d 40) (1987); *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U. S. 83 (83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The murder and robberies took place on January 5,1992. Favors was indicted on April 21, 1992 in Fulton County. He was found guilty on all counts on February 24, 1993 and was sentenced the next day to life imprisonment for the murder and two twenty-year sentences to run consecutively for the armed robbery counts. His motion for new trial was filed March 26, 1993, amended on March 4,1994 and denied that same day. Favors filed a notice of appeal to this Court on April 4,1994, and the appeal was docketed on November 8,1994. The case was submitted for decision on January 25, 1995.
MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

May 29,2014 

ADAM SIEMINSKI 

ADMINISTRATOR 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINIST~ON 

PRINCIPAL 

CHRISTOPHER 

DEPUTY 

SMITH 

ASSISTANT 

~vSECRETARY 

OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY 

Request for an Update ofEIA's January 2012 Study of Liquefied 

Natural Gas Export Scenarios 

The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) requests the Energy Infmmation Administration (EIA) 

to evaluate the impact of increased natural gas demand, reflecting possible exports of 

U.S. natural gas, on domestic energy markets using the modeling analysis presented in 

the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO 2014) as a stmiing point. The analysis should 

focus on the implications of additional natural gas demand on domestic energy 

consumption, production, and prices. 

The updated study should address scenarios reflecting increases in export-related natural 

gas demand representing totallower-48 liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports of 12 billion 

standard cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), 16 Bcf/d, and 20 Bcf/d phased in at a rate of 2 Bcf/d 

per year stmiing in 2015. Understanding that the domestic natural gas market is sensitive 

to a number of factors, FE requests that EIA include sensitivity cases to explore some of 

these uncertainties. We are patiicularly interested in sensitivity cases relating to 

alternative recovery economics for shale gas resources, as in the AE02014 Low and High 

Resource cases, a sensitivity case with additional natural gas use for electric generation, 

and a sensitivity case with increased baseline natural gas demand as in the AE02014 

High Economic Growth case. 

The study report should review and synthesize the results obtained in the modeling work 

and include, as needed, discussions of context, caveats, issues and limitations that are 

relevant to the study. Please include tables or figures that summarize impacts on annual 

domestic natural gas prices, domestic natural gas production and consumption levels, 

domestic expenditures for natural gas and other relevant fuels, and revenues associated 

with the incremental expmi demand for natural gas. The standardAEO 2014 reporting 

tables should also be provided, with the exception of tables reporting information that 

EIA considers to be spurious or misleading given the limitations of its modeling tools in 

* Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 
addressing the study questions. 

We would like to receive the completed analysis as soon as possible. We also recognize 

that EIA may post the study on its website after providing it to us. 

Thank you for your attention to this request.
#### COM. v. DAY, L.

32 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/26/2017

CP-51-CR-1223441-1981 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
S95A1108.

#### KAPLE v. THE STATE.

(462 SE2d 134)

Hunstein, Justice.

Daniel Kaple was convicted of murder and theft by taking for the death of his fiancee Brenda Jo Franks and for the theft of her automobile.1 He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder con*773viction and 20 years imprisonment for the theft by taking conviction. He appeals and we affirm.

Decided September 25, 1995 —

Reconsideration denied October 20, 1995.

*Harrison & Harrison, Samuel H. Harrison,*for appellant.

*Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, Tracy Aronowitz, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marla-Deen Brooks,*Assistant *Attorney General,*for appellee.

1. Viewed to support the verdict, the evidence at trial established that appellant strangled his fiancee, Brenda Jo Franks, and put her body in the trunk of her automobile which he drove to Ohio. Appellant later dumped her body on a small dirt road in Ohio where it was discovered three days after her disappearance. Appellant made numerous false statements about the ownership of the car which was registered to the victim, and he also stole a license plate in Ohio which he put on the car. Appellant was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama, still in possession of the victim’s vehicle. The evidence adduced was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty of murder and theft by taking beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. We have carefully reviewed appellant’s remaining enumerations of error and have found them to be without merit.2

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The murder and theft occurred on or about March 22, 1993. Kaple was indicted in Gwinnett County on May 19, 1993. He was found guilty of murder and theft by taking on May 5, 1994 and sentenced the same day. His motion for new trial was filed June 2, 1994, amended December 30, 1994, and denied on February 21, 1995. His notice of appeal was filed on March 3,1995, and the appeal was docketed in this Court on April 10, 1995. The case was submitted for decision without oral argument on June 26, 1995.

2

 Kaple also contends that the searches of his apartment conducted hy the police were invalid and that the trial court erred by admitting letters he had written to the victim as evidence of past difficulties because they brought his character into evidence.
No. 12-5330.

#### Poullard *v.*St. Amant et al.

Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### State v. Allen

107,708

11/04/13

Denied

Unpublished
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-826]


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

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER97-399-000 and Docket No. ER97-449-000


MP Energy, Inc. and Montana Power Company; Notice of Issuance of 
Order

January 8, 1997.
    On November 7, 1996, MP Energy, Inc. (MP Energy) filed an 
application for authorization to sell power at market-based rates, and 
for certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, MP Energy 
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities 
by MP Energy. On January 6, 1997, the Commission issued an Order 
Conditionally Accepting For Filing Proposed Market-Based Rates (Order), 
in the above-docketed proceedings.
    The Commission's January 7, 1997 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering Paragraphs (E), (F), and (H):
    (E) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by MP Energy 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214 (1996).
    (F) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (E) above, MP Energy is hereby authorized to issue 
securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, 
endorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another 
person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful 
object within the corporate purposes of the MP Energy, compatible with 
the public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such 
purposes.
    (H) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of MP 
Energy's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities. * * *
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is February 5, 1997.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-826 Filed 1-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 132 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 132

  Commending the heroic efforts of the people fighting the floods in 
                             North Dakota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 6, 2009

    Mr. Dorgan (for himself and Mr. Conrad) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Commending the heroic efforts of the people fighting the floods in 
                             North Dakota.

Whereas 47 of the 53 counties in North Dakota have been declared Federal 
        disaster areas;
Whereas wide swaths of North Dakota have faced unprecedented flooding crises, 
        including cities along the Des Lacs, Heart, James, Knife, Missouri, 
        Little Missouri, Park, Pembina, Red, Sheyenne, Souris, and Wild Rice 
        Rivers and Beaver Creek;
Whereas the people of North Dakota have suffered tremendous damage to their 
        homes, livelihoods, and communities;
Whereas the ranchers of North Dakota are estimated to have lost nearly 100,000 
        head of livestock;
Whereas many of the roads and bridges, and much of the other infrastructure, in 
        North Dakota are in need of repair;
Whereas, despite terrible conditions, the people of North Dakota have shown the 
        strength of their shared bond, coming together in large numbers to save 
        their cities, towns, businesses, farms, and ranches;
Whereas stories of exceptional efforts abound, from people filling millions of 
        sandbags on short notice, to people saving lives and effecting rapid 
        emergency evacuations;
Whereas Federal, State, and local officials have provided outstanding leadership 
        and effective service throughout the crisis in North Dakota; and
Whereas the response of the people of North Dakota to the disaster has shown the 
        world how communities can unite, fight, and win in a crisis: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commends the people of North Dakota for their heroic 
        efforts in fighting the floods in North Dakota;
            (2) commends the many people from around the United States 
        who assisted the people of North Dakota during this time of 
        need;
            (3) expresses appreciation to the officials of the numerous 
        Federal agencies working on the ground in North Dakota for 
        their consistently rapid, efficient, and effective response to 
        the disaster; and
            (4) continues to stand with the communities of North Dakota 
        in the efforts to recover from the flooding during 2009, and to 
        improve protections against flooding in the future.
                                 <all>
```
No. D-2677.

#### In re Disbarment of Schoenecker.

[For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 984.]

Disbarment entered.
Filed 4/8/14 P. v. Guzman CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DIEGO IVAN GUZMAN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B251955

(Super. Ct. No. 1433142)

(Santa Barbara County)

Diego Ivan Guzman appeals the judgment entered after he pled no contest 

to being an active member of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code,1 § 186.22, subd. (a)). In 

exchange for appellant's plea, the trial court dismissed counts charging him with assault 

by force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), resisting an executive 

officer (§ 69), resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and dissuading a witness 

from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), and attendant gang enhancement 

allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Appellant was sentenced to two years in state prison 

and was awarded 400 days presentence custody credit. 

Appellant and several fellow gang members were in custody at juvenile hall 

when they assaulted another juvenile who is a member of a rival gang. After appellant 

 

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

pled no contest and was sentenced to prison, he filed a timely notice of appeal 

challenging the validity of his plea. The court granted his request for a certificate of 

probable cause, which alleged he was innocent of the charge and had pled no contest out 

of ignorance. 

We appointed counsel to represented appellant in this appeal. After 

counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were 

raised.

On January 17, 2014, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within 

which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No 

response has been received.

We have reviewed the available record and are satisfied that appellant's 

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125, 

126.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.
3

Patricia Kelly, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, 

Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
<Page>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, JOHN G. SIMMONDS, the CEO and CFO of TrackPower, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

(1)      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended November 30, 2002, (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchanges
         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.


                                       By:    /s/ John G. Simmonds
                                             ------------------------------
                                             CEO and CFO




                                       Date:  January 21, 2003


                                      22
No. 12-5272.

#### Cooley *v.*Small, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 24.1ROBBINS & MYERS, INC.LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY          WHEREAS, Robbins & Myers, Inc. (the “Company”) intends to file with the Securities andExchange Commission its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2007:          NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned in his capacity as a director of the Company herebyappoints Peter C. Wallace his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power ofsubstitution and resubstitution, to execute in his name, place and stead, the Company’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2007 (including any amendment to such report) andany and all other instruments necessary or incidental in connection therewith, and to file the samewith the Securities and Exchange Commission. Said attorney shall have full power and authority todo and perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in the aforesaid capacity, every actwhatsoever necessary or desirable to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as theundersigned might or could do in person. The undersigned hereby ratifies and approves the act ofsaid attorney.          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument this 12th day of November,2007.                                             /s/ Thomas P. Loftis   Thomas P. Loftis                                          /s/ Daniel W. Duval   Daniel W. Duval                                          /s/ David T. Gibbons   David T. Gibbons                                          /s/ Stephen F. Kirk   Stephen F. Kirk                                          /s/ Andrew G. Lampereur   Andrew G. Lampereur                                            /s/ William D. Manning   William D. Manning                                          /s/ Dale L. Medford   Dale L. Medford     
66
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                              OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Statement Regarding Computation of                         Three months                     Nine months
Per Share Earnings                                      ended September 30,              ended September 30,
                                                   ----------------------------      ----------------------------
                                                       2000             1999             2000             1999
                                                   -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
<S>                                                <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Basic earnings per share:
  Weighted-average shares outstanding                1,653,382        1,701,045        1,654,625        1,732,844
  Net income per share                             $       .64      $       .42      $      1.80      $      1.11

Weighted-average common shares
     outstanding and common share
        equivalents (1)                              1,653,382        1,701,045        1,654,625        1,732,844
                                                   -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------

Net income                                         $ 1,062,000      $   705,000      $ 2,984,000      $ 1,920,000
                                                   ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
Diluted net income per share                       $       .64      $       .42      $      1.80      $      1.11
                                                   ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
</TABLE>

(1)  20,000 shares of common stock equivalents were excluded from the
     computation of earnings per share for all periods presented because they
     were antidilutive.


                                 Page 13 of 14
#### Meara v. Douglas County

107,471

10/17/13

Denied

Unpublished
No. 12-5743.

#### Younge *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### State v. Robinson

110,040

06/21/2016

Granted.

Unpublished