alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2156

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Cristina Kaye Briones, also known as Cristina Briones

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

 Submitted: November 20, 2023

Filed: November 27, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Cristina Briones appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pled

guilty to drug offenses. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief

1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of Iowa.
challenging a portion of the drug weight attributed to her, and arguing that the

sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

Upon careful review, we conclude that Briones waived any challenge to the

drug quantity attributed to her when she conceded in the district court that she was

not objecting to the facts presented in the presentence report and that the Guidelines

calculations were correct, and instead raised arguments on policy grounds. See

United States v. Booker, 576 F.3d 506, 511 (8th Cir. 2009). We also conclude that

the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). 

The court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no

indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper

or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant

factors. See id. at 461-62; United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.

2009). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 134478 & (134) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134478 COA: 257846 Eaton CC: 03-020327-FH RICHARD LEE HASSELBRING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 5, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to expand the record is DENIED.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

p1114 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 21, 2007

Clerk
#### Lyons v. State

111,675

09/14/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
#### State v. Blades

107,945

11/20/13

Denied

Unpublished
EXHIBIT 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS, INC.
  NAME
    
    PLACE OF INCORPORATIONBonfield Fund Management, L.P.
    
    DelawareBonfield VII, Ltd.
    
    British Virgin IslandsBonfield Partners Capital, L.P.
    
    DelawareNovitas Capital Management, L.P.
    
    DelawareNovitas Capital II Management, L.P.
    
    PennsylvaniaSafeguard Capital Management, Inc.
    
    DelawareSafeguard Delaware, Inc.
    
    DelawareSafeguard Delaware II, Inc.
    
    DelawareSafeguard Fund Management, Inc.
    
    DelawareSafeguard Fund Management, L.P.
    
    DelawareSafeguard Growth Fund Cayman Limited Partnership
    
    Cayman IslandsSafeguard Growth Fund, Inc.
    
    DelawareSafeguard Growth Fund, L.P.
    
    DelawareSafeguard Partners Capital, L.P.
    
    DelawareSafeguard Scientifics (Delaware), Inc.
    
    DelawareSafeguard Technologies, Inc.
    
    DelawareSFE Properties, Inc.
    
    DelawareSSI Management Company, Inc.
    
    DelawareSSI Partnership Holdings (Pennsylvania), Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 331 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 331

  Congratulating the United States Military Academy at West Point on 
   being named by Forbes magazine as America's Best College for 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

 Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Congratulating the United States Military Academy at West Point on 
   being named by Forbes magazine as America's Best College for 2009.

Whereas Forbes magazine has named the United States Military Academy at West 
        Point as America's Best College for 2009;
Whereas the United States has had a military presence at West Point since the 
        Revolutionary War because of its strategic position overlooking the 
        Hudson River;
Whereas General George Washington selected Thaddeus Kosciuszko to design West 
        Point's fortifications in 1778;
Whereas West Point is the oldest continuously occupied military post in the 
        United States;
Whereas President Thomas Jefferson established the United States Military 
        Academy at West Point in 1802;
Whereas West Point has educated many of the United States Army's commissioned 
        officers;
Whereas West Point instructs 4,400 cadets per year in academics, military 
        tactics, physical fitness, and leadership;
Whereas approximately 1,000 cadets graduate each year and are commissioned in 
        the United States Armed Services;
Whereas 2 Presidents of the United States, 74 Congressional Medal of Honor 
        recipients, 88 Rhodes Scholars, 33 Marshall Scholars, and 28 Truman 
        Scholars have graduated from West Point;
Whereas in addition to academics and military training, West Point offers 
        extracurricular activities that include the Eisenhower Hall Theatre and 
        115 athletic and non-sport clubs; and
Whereas West Point offers a well-rounded, highly regarded education to the next 
        generation of the Nation's leaders: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) congratulates the United States Military Academy at 
        West Point on being named by Forbes magazine as America's Best 
        College for 2009;
            (2) supports West Point's mission ``to educate, train, and 
        inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a 
        commissioned leader of character committed to the values of 
        Duty, Honor, Country and prepared for a career of professional 
        excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the 
        United States Army''; and
            (3) respectfully requests the Secretary of the Senate to 
        transmit a copy of this resolution to the Superintendent of 
        West Point.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

Safeco Corporation and Subsidiaries



|                                                    |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Consent of Ernst & Young LLP  Independent Auditors |  | 



We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-26393) of Safeco Corporation pertaining to the Safeco Long-Term Incentive Plan of 1997, in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-102298) and related Prospectus pertaining to the
$775,000,000 in Safeco securities, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-33444) pertaining to the Safeco Agency Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated January 26, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Safeco Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.



/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Seattle, Washington

March 11, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                               CAMBREX CORPORATION
     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cambrex Corporation (the "Company")
on form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Luke M. Beshar,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), 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.

Dated: June 7, 2006


                                        /s/ Luke M. Beshar
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Luke M. Beshar
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
S95A1351.

#### WINSTEAD v. WINSTEAD.

(461 SE2d 538)

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

In awarding permanent alimony to the wife after a bench trial, the trial court ordered that periodic alimony would be charged against the husband’s estate. We granted the husband’s application to consider whether this provision was invalid. This Court has held previously that the death of a former spouse terminates his or her obligation to pay periodic alimony that was awarded after a contested divorce trial.1 Adhering to our previous decisions, we hold that the trial court could not impose a duty on the husband’s estate to pay periodic alimony without an agreement of the parties. Therefore, we reverse the portion of the judgment imposing a charge on the husband’s estate.

Although our invalidation of the estate provision changes the trial court’s allocation of resources, a new trial is not needed. When the party who is adversely affected by the change requests that we *691eliminate the challenged provision and affirm the rest of the decree, we will not order a new trial.2 The wife concedes that our decision in *Foskey*controls, agrees that the challenged provision should be eliminated on remand, and requests that we affirm the trial court’s award of alimony to the wife. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony, we affirm the remaining provisions of the judgment.

Decided September 25, 1995.

*Charles E. Jones,*for appellant.

*Edwin S. Varner, Jr.,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with direction.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

*Foskey v. Foskey,*257 Ga. 736 (363 SE2d 547) (1988); *Deaderick v. Deaderick,*182 Ga. 96, 97 (185 SE 89) (1936).

2

 See *Gardner v. Gardner,*264 Ga. 138, 139 (441 SE2d 666) (1994) (holding that a new trial was not required when the harmed party requests that the offending provision be stricken and a new trial not be granted).
WHAT TO DO IF YOU FACE

ANTISEMITISM AT WORK

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeks to prevent and remedy

employment discrimination based on religion, including against those who are Jewish. The EEOC

Commissioners voted unanimously to issue a resolution calling for an end to violence, hatred, and

harassment against Jewish individuals.

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate

an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. 

Accommodations can include: 

Schedule changes and leave for religious observances

Exceptions to workplace dress or grooming policies or practices because an employee has

religious reasons. For example, wearing a yarmulke or tzitzit (specially knotted religious

tassels), or observing a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (e.g., not

wearing short skirts), or adhering to shaving or hair length observances (e.g., peyes or

sidelocks).

DISPARATE TREATMENT

Title VII prohibits discrimination when it comes

to any aspect of employment, including hiring,

firing, pay, job assignments, promotions,

layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other

term or condition of employment.

SEGREGATION

Title VII also prohibits workplace or job

segregation based on religion (including

religious dress and grooming). For example, an

employer may not assign a Jewish employee to

a non-customer contact position because of

actual or assumed customer preference.

HARASSMENT

Title VII prohibits workplace harassment based on religion, which may occur when an

employee is subjected to unwelcome remarks or conduct based on their religion or when an

employee is required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition

of employment.

Harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work

environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (for example, the employer

fires or demotes the target of harassment).

Title VII prohibits retaliation by an employer because an individual has engaged in protected

activity under the statute, which includes requesting religious accommodation.

RETALIATION

If you suspect discrimination, contact the EEOC promptly

because there are strict time limits for filing a charge.

www.EEOC.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RJRN'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>0000083612
<NAME>RJR NABISCO, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             348
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,617
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,621
<PP&E>                                           9,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,240)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,942
<BONDS>                                          9,456
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,657
<SALES>                                         17,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,057
<CGS>                                            8,206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   935
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 817
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,104
<INCOME-TAX>                                       566
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                454
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (21)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       433
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### State v. Bellinger

105,008

10/01/13

Denied

47 Kan. App. 2d 776
No. 12-6049.

#### Laudermilt *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 358 

Designating December 12, 2009, as ‘‘Wreaths Across America Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2009 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. SNOWE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

DECEMBER 1, 2009 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating December 12, 2009, as ‘‘Wreaths Across 

America Day’’. 

Whereas 18 years ago, the Wreaths Across America project 

began an annual tradition, during the month of December, of donating, transporting, and placing Maine balsam 

fir holiday wreaths on the graves of the fallen heroes buried at Arlington National Cemetery; 

Whereas since that tradition began, through the hard work 

and generosity of the individuals involved in the Wreaths 

Across America project, hundreds of thousands of 

wreaths have been sent to national cemeteries and veterans memorials in every State and to locations overseas; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 358 ATS 

Whereas in 2008, wreaths were sent to 372 locations across 

the United States, as well as 24 sites overseas; 

Whereas in December 2009, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcycle and motor vehicle group that is dedicated to patriotic events and includes more than 177,000 members 

nationwide, will continue their tradition of escorting a 

tractor-trailer filled with donated wreaths from Harrington, Maine, to Arlington National Cemetery; 

Whereas thousands of individuals volunteer each December to 

escort and lay the wreaths; 

Whereas, December 13, 2008, was previously designated by 

the Senate as ‘‘Wreaths Across America Day’’; and 

Whereas the Wreaths Across America project will continue its 

proud legacy on December 12, 2009, bringing 15,000 

wreaths to Arlington National Cemetery on that day: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates December 12, 2009, as ‘‘Wreaths 

3 Across America Day’’; 

4 (2) honors the Wreaths Across America project, 

5 the Patriot Guard Riders, and all of the volunteers 

6 and donors involved in this worthy tradition; and 

7 (3) recognizes the sacrifices our veterans, 

8 servicemembers, and their families have made, and 

9 continue to make, for our great Nation. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ ooOoo

‐‐‐‐

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Kelly Robbennolt,

Defendant and Appellant. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) PER CURIAM DECISION

Case No. 20110436

‐ CA

F I L E D

(July 27, 2012)

2012 UT App 209

‐‐‐‐‐

Fourth District, Provo Department, 091401782

The Honorable Darold J. McDade

Attorneys: Taylor C. Hartley, American Fork; and William H. Nebeker, Provo, for

Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Laura B. Dupaix, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges McHugh, Thorne, and Roth.

¶1 Kelly Robbennolt appeals his conviction of forgery after a bench trial. We affirm.

¶2 “When reviewing a bench trial for sufficiency of evidence, we must sustain the

trial court’s judgment unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence, or if the

appellate court otherwise reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

made.” State v. Larsen

, 2000 UT App 106, ¶ 10, 999 P.2d 1252 (internal quotation marks

omitted). When challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, a

defendant “must marshal all of the evidence in support of the trial court’s findings of

fact and then demonstrate that the evidence, including all reasonable inferences drawn

therefrom, is insufficient to support the findings.” Id. ¶ 11 (citation omitted). To meet

the marshaling burden, Robbennolt was required to “present, in comprehensive and1 Robbennolt also asserts that the trial court’s comment in finding him guilty

precluded finding the element of intent. However, the trial court clearly found that

Robbennolt had the intent to defraud and the comment singled out by Robbennolt is

out of context.

20110436

‐ CA 2 fastidious order,” all of the evidence presented at trial supporting the findings he now

resists. State v. Clark

, 2005 UT 75, ¶ 17, 124 P.3d 235.

¶3 Robbennolt fails to meet this burden. Instead, he merely presents some evidence

favorable to him that he argues conclusively establishes that he had authority to give a

partial deed of trust to the victim. This does not constitute marshaling. See id. Further,

in finding Robbennolt guilty of forgery, the trial court necessarily relied on the direct

witness testimony and did not give weight to the evidence as Robbennolt presents it.

Testimony established that Robbennolt’s authority to issue partial deeds of trust was

limited to a specific need to correct errors for particular investors. He did not have

authority to grant additional interests in the subject property or encumber it further.

The evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that Robbennolt lacked the authority

to grant the partial deed of trust and that he acted with the purpose to defraud.

Accordingly, his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails. 1

¶4 Affirmed.

____________________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh,

Presiding Judge

____________________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

____________________________________ Stephen L. Roth, Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7119

NATHANIEL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RANDOLPH COUNTY CORRECTION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-97-1202-1)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Herre Erwin, Assistant

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Johnson v. Randolph County Correction, No. CA-97-1202-1, (M.D.N.C.

July 8, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knickerbocker Capital Corp. for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:  (1)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knickerbocker Capital Corp. for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Knickerbocker Capital Corp..    By:/s/ Dempsey MorkName:Dempsey MorkTitle:Principal Executive Officer,
and DirectorDate:Nov. 19, 2009By:/s/ Dempsey MorkName:Dempsey MorkTitle:Principal Financial OfficerDate:Nov. 19, 2009