alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DECEMBER 24, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-12371

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-20031-CR-FAM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KAUNDA OMAR JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(December 24, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kaunda Omar Jackson appeals his sentence of 48 months of imprisonment
for illegal reentry after deportation. 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Jackson argues

for the first time on appeal that the application of section 2L1.2 is unreasonable

and constitutes double counting. Jackson also argues that his sentence is

unreasonable. We affirm.

Objections that are not raised in the district court are reviewed for plain

error. United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 831 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).

We review the reasonableness of a criminal sentence for an abuse of discretion.

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594, 596–97 (2007). “[T]he party who

challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is

unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).”

United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).

The district court did not plainly err in applying section 2L1.2 of the

Sentencing Guidelines. The district court correctly calculated the guideline range

and considered that range as one of several factors regarding Jackson’s sentence.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264, 125 S. Ct. 738, 767 (2005); United

States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235, 1248 (11th Cir. 2008). The application of

section 2L1.2 also is not impermissible double counting because the use of a prior

felony in the criminal history section and section 2L1.2 serve the separate purposes

of punishing recidivism and deterring aliens from reentry. United States v.

2
Adeleke, 968 F.2d 1159, 1161 (11th Cir. 1992).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within

the guideline range. Although Jackson complains that the court failed to consider

that he reentered the United States to join his family and he regretted his crime, the

court stated that it had considered those facts. The court did not abuse its

discretion when it concluded that a sentence of 48 months of imprisonment served

the statutory purposes of deterrence and adequate punishment. See 28 U.S.C. §

3553(a); Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Jackson’s sentence is

reasonable.

Jackson’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

3
No. 12-7429.

#### Salim *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
##### 



Certifications Furnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    The quarterly report on form 10-Q of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. for the period ended
May 4, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully
complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the above-mentioned report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ADC Telecommunications, Inc.
 /s/ Robert E. SwitzRobert E. SwitzJune  6, 2007/s/ James G. MathewsJames G. MathewsJune  6, 2007
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                         
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Spain (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Spain (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 2,911  | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 24,644 | 43,048 | 52,181 | 31,293 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-402.

#### Rates Technology, Inc. *v.*Speakeasy, Inc., et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7002.

#### Berrones-Zavala *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7303.

#### Malone *v.*Merit Systems Protection Board.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1227]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Joint Special Committee 182; Minimum Operational Performance 
Standards (MOPS) for an Avionics Computer Resource

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for 
Special Committee (SC)-182 meeting to be held February 4-6, 1998, 
starting at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 
Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
    The agenda will include: (1) Chairman's Introductory Remarks; (2) 
Review and Approval of the Agenda; (3) Review of Meeting Reports: a. 
RTCA SC-182 Meeting (10/22-24/97); b. EUROCAE Working Group 48 Meeting; 
(4) Adoption of Proposed Sections of Draft MOPS (Proposed MOPS material 
has been posted to the SC-182 web site, <a href="http://
forums.americas.digital.com/avf/RTCA.SC-182/dispatch.cgi">http://
forums.americas.digital.com/avf/RTCA.SC-182/dispatch.cgi</a> in the 
Discussion Document Forums. Discussion of these papers during the 
meeting will be limited to decisionmaking: Incorporate, refer to 
subgroup, or reject); (5) Working Group Sessions, Chapters 1-4; (6) 
Working Group Reports; (7) Other Business; (8) Date and Place of Next 
Meeting (Tentative Future Meetings: 05/12-14/98, Nice, France; 09/09-
11/98, in Europe, colocated with SC-190/Working Group 52; 12/98, 
Washington, DC.)
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web 
site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 13, 1998.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 98-1227 Filed 1-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Kentucky Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Kentucky Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 63,024 | 63,971 | 65,041
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 67,086 | 68,461 | 69,466 | 71,998 | 73,562 | 74,521 | 76,079 | 77,693 | 80,147 | 80,283
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 81,588 | 81,795 | 82,757 | 84,110 | 84,493 | 85,243 | 85,236 | 85,210 | 84,985 | 83,862
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 84,707 | 84,977 | 85,129 | 85,999 | 85,630 | 85,961 | 85,851 | 86,409 | 86,759 | 87,114
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 87,608 | 87,765 | 88,412 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/28/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 7/31/2024
No. 12-7046.

#### Forney *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 2, 2017

a0424 

# Order

Clerk May 2, 2017

154230 & (42)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154230

COA: 326871

Tuscola CC: 14

- 013044

- FC

RYAN NEIL

- JOHNATHON LAROSE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a supplement is GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented

should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION

                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Incentra
Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Paul McKnight, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


Date:    April 4, 2006                         By:   /s/ Paul McKnight
                                                      -----------------
                                                      Paul McKnight
                                                      Chief Financial Officer



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


         This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|North Dakota Natural Gas % of Total Vehicle Fuel Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|North Dakota Natural Gas % of Total Vehicle Fuel Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 0.88   | 0.48   | 0.44   | 0.50   | 0.57   | 0.50   | 0.50  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0.50   | 0.46   | 0.45   | 0.45   | 0.45   | 0.01   | 0.01   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

Aircraft Management Services, 

### Complainant,

v.
Rosa 

### County, .Florida Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) )



### ORDER FAA Docket No.16-12-02

On 25, 2015, counsel Respondent, SantaRosa County, filed a Motionpursuant to 14 CFR 

### § 16.19, requesting an extension oflime to August 26, 2015, 

### torespond 

### to the Director's Determination, FAA DocketNo. 16·12·02, dated March 27,2015.

Counsel advised that the Respondent continuesto coordinate with both fixed based operators (FBOs) and needs the additional time to finalize a Corrective Action Plan. Counsel certified that he contacted the Complainant's counsel, and that the Complainant consents to the extension.

Part 16 is intendedto expedite the handling and disposition ofairport-related complaints. Rules ofPractice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 

### (Oct !996). Extensions oftime may be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete considerationof matters before the agency. See 14 CFR 

### § l6.ll(a).

An extension oftime is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Respondent is hereby granted anextension oftime which to submita Corrective ActionPlan or to file anAppeal pursuantto CFR 

### § 1633(c). The Respondent's submission or filing is nowdue on August 25, 2015.

Director, 

### Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE



### I HEREBY CERTIFY that onJune 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) and to be at the addresses below orpersonally delivered a true copy ofthe foregoing Order addressed to:

For Complainant Ryan Hatler Michael J. 

### Schofield Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & 

### Stackhouse 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 P.O. Box 13010 Pensacola, 32591-3010 

### Email: rl:!fl!J!lr(iilcphlrl.'!V-.e9.2!!!:**mscb!lfi~ldial~Q.Illa..w"fom** 

### For Respondent Roy Andrews SantaRosa County's Attorney's Office 6495 Caroline Street Suite C Milton, FL 32570 Email: roya@santarosa.fl.gov Gregory Stewart Harry F. Chiles William Garner Nabors, Giblin & 

### Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32308 

### Email: gstewart!Wngn]aw.com; 

### bgm;Ilei@ng.nlaw.cQm; 

### legal

### cadrnin(al,ngnlaw.com Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, ACO- 100
Martin, Michael (OST) 

Subject: FW: FW: Great Lakes Ai i~es ~AS proposal for service to Worland, WY 

From: Dave Duffy [mailto:mayor@rtconnect.net] 

Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 2:46PM 

To: 'Michaei.F.Martin@dot.gov' 

: _ .. ·· ~ ~.: ~-~ : - . . 

Cc: Wayne Hill (worlandairport@rtconnect.net); 'Sheri Taylor'; 'Tracy Glanz' 

Subject: Great Lakes Airlines EAS proposal for service to Worland, WY 

Monday, June 23, 2014 

Dear Mr. Martin, 

I write as a follow up to our telephone conversation regarding the selection of Great Lakes Airlines to 

provide commercial air service to Worland, Wyoming. As we discussed, we are pleased to have a 

carrier that will provide air service to us. As I related, my wife and I flew Great Lakes and Frontier to 

Kansas City and back recently. We were both very pleased with the flights going and corning and with 

the staff of Great Lakes in Worland and in Denver. 

This being my first experience with the bid process for EAS service, I was not certain what to expect 

from the process or from the potential carriers. I would have hoped that all carriers would bid the route 

from Denver to Worland via Laramie in order to provide equal comparisons of subsidy and service. I 

understand the process better now. 

I believe it is important for us to go forward with our plans to advertise the advantages of flying from 

Worland and that we should do so in partnership with Great Lakes. 

1 
Many of us in Worland understand the importance of commercial air service to the 

community. Hopefully carriers and airport managers will navigate the rule changes successfully and 

resolve the service issues that have plagued us. 

We look forward to the approval of the bid for service from Great Lakes Airlines and appreciate the 

efforts made by you on our behalf. We also appreciate the efforts of the folks at WYDOT Aeronautics. 

Thank you, 

Respectfully, 

David M. Duffy 

Mayor- Worland, WY 

Wayne Hill 

2008 Cloud Peak Dr.; Unit 1 

Worland WY 82401 

2
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0602 Directorate ID: 2009-SW-061-AD

Helicopter Model: Schweizer Aircraft Corporation/Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model 269D 

and Model 269D Configuration A Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 18 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent separation of the horizontal 

stabilizer from the helicopter and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $150 for the inspection panel installation

$38,000 for repairs for structural damage

$120 to repair crack(s)

Labor per Helicopter

(0.15 hour x $85/work-hour

per daily visual inspection)

(2 hours x $85/work-hour per 

internal inspection)

(16 hours x $85/work-hour 

for inspection panel 

installation)

(24 hours x $85/work-hour 

for repairs for structural 

damage)

(24 hours x $85/work-hour to 

repair crack(s))

(10 hours x $85/work-hour to 

repair skin interference)

$9

$170

$1,360

$2,040

$2,040

$850

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $4,985 per year for inspections, assuming 365 daily 

inspections per year and 10 internal inspections per 

year.

$1,510 for the inspection panel installation.

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:
2

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Stephen Kowalski
No. 12-7337.

#### Shahin *v.*Glen.

C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certio-rari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.