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

No. 14

- 10475 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ROBERTO BAHENA

- VALLADARES, also known as Roberto Valladares

Bahena , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:13

- CR

- 67

- 1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roberto Bahena

Valladares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Bahena

- Valladares h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 December 23, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10475 Document: 00512880464 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2014No. 14

- 10475

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review . Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-10475 Document: 00512880464 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2014
**Exhibit 32.01**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

               In connection with the Annual Report of Macrovision Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), William A. Krepick certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), that to the best of his knowledge:

                (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), and

                (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as of March 12, 2004.

|   | /s/ WILLIAM A. KREPICK                             |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                    |   |
|   | **William A.   Krepick   Chief Executive Officer** |   |
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

August 30, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00577

- CR

Jason David KIMBALL

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR1497B Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl, Judge Presi ding



### O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the criminal case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Proc edure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be dismissed p ursuant to rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant causes an amended trial court certification to be filed by September 30, 2019 , showing appellant has the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State ,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ Keith E . Hottle Clerk of Cour t
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13743

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEXANDER LESZCZYNSKI, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00371-JSM-AAS-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-13743 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13743

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Leszczynski appeals his total sentence of 210 

months’ imprisonment imposed after he entered an open plea of 

guilty to murder-for-hire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) and 

obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a). He argues

that the district court plainly erred in calculating his criminal 

history score for purposes of the sentencing guidelines by including 

in the calculation his prior sentences for fraud in the Middle District 

of Florida (case number 8:22-cr155-MSS-SPF) because those 

offenses were part of his current offense conduct.1 

We held this case in abeyance pending the resolution of 

Leszczynski’s separate appeal of those prior fraud convictions. We

ultimately vacated the fraud convictions, concluding that the 

district court erred as a matter of law in denying Leszczynski’s 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea in that case. United States v. 

Leszczynski, case no. 23-13335, 2024 WL 3103305, at *3 (11th Cir. 

June 24, 2024). As a result, we agree that Leszczynski’s guideline 

range in the present case must be recalculated. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 4A1.2, cmt. (n.6) (2023) (stating that “[s]entences resulting from 

convictions that . . . have been reversed or vacated because of 

1 The fraud convictions resulted in a criminal history score of three and a 

criminal history category of II. Without the fraud offenses, Leszczynski’s 

criminal history score would have been zero, resulting in a lower criminal 

history category of I and a lesser guidelines range.

USCA11 Case: 23-13743 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2024 Page: 2 of 3
23-13743 Opinion of the Court 3

errors of law . . . are not to be counted”); see also Molina-Martinez v. 

United States, 578 U.S. 189, 198 (2016) (holding that for purposes of 

plain error review, “[w]hen a defendant is sentenced under an 

incorrect Guidelines range—whether or not the defendant’s 

ultimate sentence falls within the correct range—the error itself 

can, and most often will, be sufficient to show a reasonable 

probability of a different outcome absent the error”). Accordingly, 

we vacate his sentence and remand for further proceedings. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 23-13743 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2024 Page: 3 of 3
#### Com. v. Carter

03/30/2016

369 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 93
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1175

MADISON CAPITAL COMPANY LLC; MADISON FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC,

Plaintiffs – Appellees,

v.

JOSEPH H. MILLER, IV,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (2:08-cv-01563-PMD)

Argued: March 25, 2011 Decided: May 26, 2011

Before KING, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Clayton B. McCullough, PRATT-THOMAS WALKER, PA, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Bryson Moore Geer, 

NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jennifer H. Thiem, NELSON 

MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity action to enforce a personal guarantee of 

a business loan obligation, Defendant guarantor Joseph H. 

Miller, IV, appeals the district court’s award of summary 

judgment to Plaintiff lender Madison Capital Company LLC, joined 

on appeal by its post-judgment assignee, Madison Fort 

Lauderdale, LLC. Miller asserts in the main that the district 

court misconstrued the governing law of New York and the duties 

and obligations thereby imposed in connection with the Loan 

Agreement and Guaranty of Payment executed by the parties to the 

underlying transaction. In addition to his contentions of legal 

error, Miller maintains that the district court improperly 

resolved genuine issues of material fact in Madison’s favor and 

ignored meritorious equitable defenses that should have 

precluded the entry of summary judgment against him.

With respect to one equitable defense that Miller now 

contends the district court ignored (an alleged violation of his 

due process rights), Miller failed to preserve appellate review 

by presenting the defense in the district court. Generally, 

“issues that were not raised in the district court will not be 

addressed on appeal.” See Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 

181 F.3d 597, 605 (4th Cir. 1999). As a result, we review 

Miller’s due process contention for plain error only. See
3

Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, Inc., 369 F.3d 

385, 396-97 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

Having carefully examined the record and assessed the 

parties’ written submissions together with the argument of 

counsel, we discern no reversible error. We are therefore

content to affirm the judgment of the district court for the 

cogent reasons spelled out in its memorandum Order of September 

22, 2009 — excepting, of course, the unpreserved due process 

contention that was not presented to the court and which fails 

to survive plain error review. See Madison Capital Co., LLC, v. 

Miller, No. 2:08-cv-1563, 2009 WL 3065205 (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 

2009).

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2029 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2029

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the taxable sale or 
use, without penalty, of dyed diesel fuel with respect to recreational 
                                boaters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 19 (legislative day, April 11), 1994

 Mr. Breaux (for himself, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Johnston) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the taxable sale or 
use, without penalty, of dyed diesel fuel with respect to recreational 
                                boaters.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PENALTY-FREE TAXABLE SALE OR USE OF DYED DIESEL FUEL WITH 
              RESPECT TO RECREATIONAL BOATERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 6714 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to dyed fuel sold for use or used in taxable use, etc.), as 
added by section 13242(b)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
of 1993, is amended by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as 
subsections (d) and (e), respectively, and by inserting after 
subsection (b) the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Exception.--No penalty shall be imposed under subsection (a) 
on any person who--
            ``(1) sells or holds for sale dyed fuel for use in, or uses 
        dyed fuel in, any diesel-powered boat, and
            ``(2) pays the tax imposed on such sale or use under 
        section 4041(a)(1)(A).''
    (b) Technical Amendments.--
            (1) Part II of subchapter B of chapter 68 of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating section 6714 
        (relating to dyed fuel sold for use or used in taxable use, 
        etc.), as added by section 13242(b)(1) of the Omnibus Budget 
        Reconciliation Act of 1993, as section 6715.
            (2) The table of sections for such part is amended by 
        redesignating the item relating to section 6714 (relating to 
        dyed fuel sold for use or used in taxable use, etc.), as added 
        by section 13242(b)(2) of such Act, as section 6715.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the amendments made by section 13242(b) of the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

                                 <all>
```
# DLA Energy supports NATO air refueling training

/ Published Aug. 14, 2020

Supporting strong partnerships with NATO allies, Defense Logistics Agency Energy Europe and Africa bridged fuel support capabilities between the 100th Air Refueling Wing, Royal Air Force Mildenhall in the United Kingdom and NATO allies and partners located at Papa Air Base, Hungary.

“These actions enabled the 100th Operational Support Squadron from RAF Mildenhall to conduct scarce air-to-air refueling training which is critical to maintaining their currency and proficiency to NATO nations,” said DLA Energy Europe and Africa Commander Army Lt. Col. Donna Welch.

Sam Fedele in DLA Energy International Fuel Agreements worked closely with Air Force Capt. Renee Meeder, DLA Energy liaison officer to U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. They ensured all fuel requirements and billing information were secured for USAFE forces to leverage Host Nation fuel support from the Hungarian Armed Forces at Papa Air Base. 

“Sam and Capt. Meeder worked quickly together to understand our customers’ requirements and ensure the proper guidance and resources were in place to support the critical training,” Welch said. “Strategically positioned DLA capabilities where the warfighter needs them most helps us anticipate and respond to emerging requirements.” 

Fedele confirmed the Acquisitions and Cross-Servicing Agreement with Hungary was in place and verified fuel codes. ACSAs are used worldwide between partner nations to acquire logistics support, supplies, and services. 

Meeder liaised with Fedele to confirm fuel agreement authority, billing procedures and documentation needed for mission fuel requirements. 

It was key for the Heavy Airlift Wing commander at Papa Air Base to know we had all the correct logistics in place for this training to happen, Fedele said.

The commander of the 100th Air Refueling Wing at RAF Mildenhall and the commander of the Strategic Airlift Capability, Heavy Airlift Wing at Papa Air Base praised the efforts in an email. 

“Renee and Sam, thank you for coordinating the specifics from the DLA perspective and providing the final instructions to make this all work,” wrote Air Force Col. James Sparrow, the Strategic Airlift Capability, Heavy Airlift Wing Commander at Papa Air Base, Hungary. “This training is essential to providing airlift to our member nations, especially as fuel stops are becoming more challenging because of COVID-19 restrictions.”

DLA Energy’s number one priority is meeting the warfighters’ competing demands on the battlefield, especially when it comes to providing reliable and high-quality fuel and global relationships. The DLA Energy International Fuel Agreements team is responsible for establishing and maintaining long-term Department of Defense fuel agreements with foreign militaries.
Exhibit 21.1

EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC.

List of Subsidiaries

|Subsidiary                                    |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of
Organization |  | Doing Business As                                                       
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Epiq Systems Acquisition, Inc.(1)             |  | New York                                    |  |                                                                         
|Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC(2)              |  | New York                                    |  | Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC                                           
|Epiq Financial Balloting Group LLC(2)         |  | New York                                    |  | Epiq Financial Balloting Group LLC                                      
|Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.(1) |  | Rhode Island                                |  | Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
Epiq Corporate Services, Inc.
|Epiq Bankruptcy Advisory Services, Inc.(2)    |  | Illinois                                    |  | Epiq Bankruptcy Advisory Services, Inc.                                 
|Hilsoft, Inc.(2)                              |  | Pennsylvania                                |  | Hilsoft Notifications                                                   
|Epiq Preference Solutions LLC(2)              |  | New York                                    |  | Epiq Preference Solutions LLC                                           
|Epiq eDiscovery Solutions, Inc.(2)            |  | Delaware                                    |  | Epiq eDiscovery Solutions, Inc.                                         
|Epiq Systems Ltd.(1)                          |  | England and Wales                           |  | Epiq Systems, Ltd.                                                      
|LegalLink Support Services, LLC(2)            |  | Missouri                                    |  | LegalLink Support Services, LLC                                         

---

---



QuickLinks
(June 20, 2017)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aneudy Rodriguez, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 285]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Shari R. Michels, J. at plea; Ethan Greenberg, J. at sentencing), rendered March 3, 2016, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s waiver of indictment and his prosecution by superior court information were valid under CPL 195.10 (2) (b) because the proceedings took place in Supreme Court, not Criminal Court. Defendant waived indictment in a hybrid court, and the record establishes that the part was then operating in its capacity as a Supreme Court part, so that the transfer from Criminal to Supreme Court had occurred *(see People v Graves,*136 AD3d 520 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*27 NY3d 997 [2016]).

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
|                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                         
|                                                                                                      
|Price of Sault St Marie, MI Natural Gas Pipeline Imports From Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                      
|Price of Sault St Marie, MI Natural Gas Pipeline Imports From Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                      

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan  | Feb  | Mar  | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov  | Dec 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ---- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---- | ----
|2018                                                                                                                              |      |      |      |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      | 4.42
|2019                                                                                                                              | 3.34 | 2.72 | 2.80 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |     
|                                                                                                                                 
|2021                                                                                                                              |      |      |      |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 2.48 |     
|- = 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
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| \s\ James H. Moore      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| James H. Moore          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| August 13, 2010    |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MinesManagement, Inc. and will be retained by Mines Management, Inc andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----