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

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

 Submitted March 26, 2009∗

Decided April 8, 2009

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 08-4099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN A. RADERMACHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 05-CR-39-C-01

Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.

Order

Last fall we vacated Radermacher’s sentence and remanded for resentencing in 

light of Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). The district court then sentenced 

Radermacher to 300 months in prison, 60 months below his guideline range of 360 

months to life. (That range reflects the amendments to the cocaine guidelines made in 

2007.) The sentence before the remand had been 360 months. Despite this substantial 

reduction, Radermacher has appealed again. His lawyer has filed an Anders brief, and 

Radermacher has declined the court’s invitation to respond. See Circuit Rule 51(b).

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08-4099 Page 2

After consulting with Radermacher, counsel represents that his client does not 

wish to withdraw his guilty plea. So the only potential appellate issues concern 

sentencing. And as there was no contest in the district court to the district judge’s 

calculation of the guidelines range, argument would be limited to a contention that the 

judge did not understand the extent of her discretion after United States v. Booker, 543 

U.S. 220 (2005), or otherwise imposed a sentence unreasonable in light of the statutory 

criteria. Because the sentence is below a properly determined range, it is presumed 

reasonable on appeal, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007). And the prior 

remand under Kimbrough ensured that the sentence reflected the full extent of judicial 

discretion.

Thus there is no non-frivolous issue for appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw, and we dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the annual report of General Bearing Corporation and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 28,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Controller of the
Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge
and belief 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 as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has
been provided to General Bearing Corporation and will be retained by General
Bearing Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

Date: April 14, 2003.


/s/ David L. Gussack
------------------------
David L. Gussack
President


/s/ Rocky Cambrea
------------------------
Rocky Cambrea
Controller
•' • 

SERVED: January 29, 201~ 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS · 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORTION 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2014-0864 

l ... ,· __ -: __ , 

' ' 

CORRECTED: UNCONTESTED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

FOR ANSWER TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, 

INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND 

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 

The Court, having reviewed Respondent's Motion To Extend Time for Answer to 

Complainant's First Set of Requests for Admission, Interrogatories, Request for Production of 

Documents and Notice of Deposition, and being otherwise fully advised on the premises; 

IT BE AND IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is granted. Federal Express Corporation is 

granted additional time within which to respond to the Complaint and shall file its Answer to 

Complainant's First Set of Requests for Admission, Interrogatories, Request for Production of 

. Documents and Notice of Deposition on or before February 2, 2015. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge ; ' !( .. :. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAl/&:. ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Greg Stofko, Respondent's Counsel 

1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Suite 950 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

TEL: 202-393-9285 

FAX: 202-628-0654 

EMAIL: greg.stofko@fedex.com 

James Archier, Complainant's Counself 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

2601 Meacham Boulevard 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5074 

FAX: . 817-222-5945/5092 

ONE COPY 

, .... ,...· .... 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0864 

(CivilPenalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Millipore Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), each of the undersigned, Francis J. Lunger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kathleen B. Allen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ FRANCIS J. LUNGER *                   
|Francis J. Lunger                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer     
|August 6, 2004                            
|                                          
|/s/ KATHLEEN B. ALLEN*                    
|Kathleen B. Allen                         
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|August 6, 2004                            



---

|* | - A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Millipore Corporation and will be retained by Millipore Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 13a0841n.06

No. 12-6546

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

THOMAS GOODEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

TENNESSEE

Before: COOK, GRIFFIN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Thomas Gooden pointed a loaded 9mm pistol at hisgirlfriend,

Sheilah Ebron, and threatened to shoot her if she did not comply with his demands. He later pled

guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). In calculating

Gooden’s Guidelines range, the district court applied a cross-reference for aggravated assault under

§ 2A2.2 of the Guidelines. That section of the Guidelines defines aggravated assault as “assault that

involved [] a dangerous weapon with intent to cause bodily injury (i.e., not merely to frighten) with

that weapon[.]” We review application of the cross reference de novo. See United States v. Brika,

487 F.3d 450, 454 (6th Cir. 2007).

It was the government’s burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Gooden had

the intent required by § 2A2.2. See United States v. Stewart, 628 F.3d 246, 256 (6th Cir. 2010). 
No. 12-6546

United States v. Gooden

Gooden now argues that the government failed to prove such intent here, and instead showed merely

that he tried to frighten Ebron when he pointed the pistol at her. 

We infer a defendant’s intent from “the totality of circumstances.” United States v.

Al-Zubaidy, 283 F.3d 804, 809 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Here, the following facts are

undisputed: Gooden was enraged at Ebron at the time of the subject incident. He threw a fan against

the wall and punched Ebron in the mouth before finding the pistol under her pillow. He pointed the

pistol at her and told her not to move or else he would shoot her. He punched a hole in the door of

her 10-year-old son’s room, found the son in the bathroom, hit the son in the chest, pointed the gun

at him, and threatened to pistol-whip him. When Ebron stepped into the hallway to investigate,

Gooden pointed the pistol at her and told her he would shoot her if she did not sit down. 

This evidence was sufficient for the district court to find that Gooden intended to shoot Ebron

if she did not complywith his demands (she did comply). That Gooden might have lacked any intent

to shoot Ebron when he arrived at her house is beside the point. Section 2A2.2 requires only that

Gooden intended to harm Ebron when he pointed the pistol at her, not that he had that intent

sometime before then. Nor does it matter that Gooden did not actually pull the trigger. The whole

point of an enhancement for assault with a dangerous weapon (unlike, say, an enhancement for

attempted or actual murder) is that the defendant does not have to pull the trigger for the

enhancement to apply. See U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(2)(C); United States v. Farrow, 198 F.3d 179, 194

(6th Cir. 1999).

The district court’s judgment is affirmed. 

-2-
Exhibit 32.1
  Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(b) and section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 
 I, Tim Hunt, Chief Executive Officer of HuntMountain Resources Ltd., certify that:
 
 1.           This quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HuntMountain Resources Ltd. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HuntMountain Resources Ltd.
 Date: July 25, 2011
  /s/  Tim HuntTim Hunt, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
No. 12-738.

#### Dool et al. *v.*Burke et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AURELIO MARTINEZ CLEMENTE,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 73057 Agency No. A200

- 630

- 844

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
S ubmitted August 19, 2019 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Aurelio Martinez Clemente, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency ’ s factual findings

. Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 73057

2010) . We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Martinez Clemente failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal, where the record includes a signed Form I

- 826 indicating that he accepted administrative voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings in 2011. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Ibarra

- Flores v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006) (alien’s acceptance of administrative voluntary departure interrupts the accrual of continuous physical presence); Serrano G utierrez v. Mukasey , 521 F.3d
111 4, 1117

- 18 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring some evidence that alien was informed of and accepted the terms of the voluntary departure agreement). Even assuming Martinez Clemente’s testimony to be credible, see Krotova v. Gonzales , 416 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2005) (“ When the BIA ’ s decision is silent on the issue of credibility, despite an IJ ’ s explicit adverse credibility finding, we may presume t hat the BIA found the petitioner to be credible .”), his testimony does not compel a contrary conclusion , c

f. Ibarra

- Flores , 439 F.3d 614 at 619

- 20 (insufficient evidence that alien knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure where
record did not contain the voluntary departure form and alien’s testimony suggested that he accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration authorities).
Th e BIA sufficiently explained its decision. See Najmabadi , 597 F.3d at3 17

- 73057

990

- 91 (holding the BIA adequatel y considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 12-7888.

#### Parks *v.*Mohave County Sheriff’s Department et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Millipore Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kathleen B. Allen,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.



/s/ Kathleen B. Allen

Kathleen B. Allen
Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14076]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-222-000]


Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

May 21, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 18, 1998, Kern River Gas Transmission 
Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, a number of tariff sheets to become 
effective January 1, 1997, June 1, 1997, October 1, 1997, or July 1, 
1998, as specified in Appendix A of the filing.
    Kern River states that the purpose of this filing is to make 
several minor revisions to Kern River's tariff. Kern River proposes (1) 
to relocate certain Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) standards in 
its tariff and on pending tariff sheets filed in Kern River's Docket 
No. RP97-342-004 pooling proposal, to increase ease of reference and to 
eliminate duplication; (2) to correct the stated Gas Research Institute 
(GRI) surcharge; and (3) to make other general ``housekeeping'' 
changes.
    Kern River states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
its customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14076 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of : No. 35 DB 2017 (No. 31 RST 2017) 

DEBORAH COHEN WALDMAN : Attorney Registration No. 62217 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION : (Montgomery County) 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of May, 2017, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated April 27, 2017, is approved and it is ORDERED that 

Deborah Waldman Cohen, who has been on Administrative Suspension, has never 

been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral 

qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the 

Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the 

Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation 

and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               57
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,170
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,497
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     375
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       375
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 3.2

ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

The undersigned persons, pursuant to Section 79-4-10.06 (if a profit corporation) or Section 79-11-305 (if a nonprofit corporation) of the Mississippi Code of 1972, hereby execute the following document and set forth:

1.          Type of Corporation

             [X] Profit                    [  ] Nonprofit

2.          Name of Corporation

             Mississippi Chemical Corporation

3.          The future effective date is __________________________

             (Complete if applicable)

4.          Set forth the text of each amendment adopted. (Attach page)

5.          If an amendment for a business corporation provides for an exchange, reclassification, or cancellation of issued shares, set forth the provisions for implementing the amendment if they are not contained in the amendment itself. (Attach page)

6.          The amendment(s) was (were) adopted on

             12/2/2003

             FOR PROFIT CORPORATION (Check the appropriate box)

             Adopted by [   ] the incorporators          [   ] directors without shareholder action and
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13892]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CA-930-1430-01; CACA 37272]


Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting; 
California; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In notice document 96-23380 beginning on page 48161 in the 
issue of Thursday, September 12, 1996, make the following corrections:
    On page 48161, in the third column, 230 acres, which is contained 
in the SUMMARY section, is corrected to read 210 acres; and
    On page 48162, in the first column, (1) sec. 32 in the legal 
description contained in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, is 
corrected to read sec. 33, and (2) also in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section, 230 acres is corrected to read 210 acres.

    Dated: May 13, 1998.
Mark A. Conley,
Acting Deputy State Director, Natural Resources.
[FR Doc. 98-13892 Filed 5-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
No. 12-8441.

#### Paxson *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Com. v. Thomas

09/28/2015

97 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 382