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

No. 19

- 60209 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JEROME VINCENT STEVE , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 106

- 1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jerome Vincent Steve appeals his above

- guidelines sentence after pleading guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to second degree murder. Steve challenges the sentence as procedurally unreasonable on the ground that the district court erroneously i mposed various upward departures. Seeking to enforce the appeal waiver, the Government moves to dismiss the appeal and a lternatively moves for summary affirmance

.

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 November 14, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-60209 Document: 00515199734 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2019No. 19

- 60209

2 We review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal

. United States v. Keele , 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Based on our review of the record, Steve knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea agreement, including the appeal waiver, which is enforceable and bars his appeal. See United States v. McKinney , 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). As Steve concede s , his contention that his appeal waiver was unknowing because he entered into it prior to sentencing and without knowledge of his ultimate sentence is foreclosed

. See United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 567

- 68 (5th Cir. 1992). We GRANT the Government’s motion to dismiss , and we DENY its alternat ive motion for summary affirmance as unnecessary

. APPEAL DISMISSED. Case: 19-60209 Document: 00515199734 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2019
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19451]



[[Page 39283]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-239-001]


Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C., Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

July 16, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 13, 1998, Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C 
(Destin) tendered for filing certain modifications to its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, to become effective on July 1, 1998.
    Destin states that the purpose of this filing is to clarify its 
Rate Schedule FT-1 and FT-2 banking provisions filed on June 1, 1998 in 
compliance with the Commission's Letter Order issued June 26, 1998 in 
the above-referenced docket (June 26 Order), as more particularly 
described in Destin's July 13, 1998 filing.
    Destin requests that its proposed tariff changes be made effective 
July 1, 1998, which is the effective date set forth in the June 26 
Order for the tariff sheets filed in the June 1, 1998 filing.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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. 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. 98-19451 Filed 7-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-5498.

#### Daniel Richards, Petitioner v. Ben Curry, Warden.

565 U.S. 911, 132 S. Ct. 320,

181 L. Ed. 2d 198,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6283.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 11-200.

#### Mauricio Puche, Orlando Puche, and Enrique A. Puche, Petitioners v. United States.

565 U.S. 884, 132 S. Ct. 255,

181 L. Ed. 2d 148,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5453,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Ashutosh Roy, the chief
executive officer of eGain Communications Corporation (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,

(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

/s/ Ashutosh RoyAshutosh Roy  May 14, 2009


A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to eGain
Communications Corporation and will be retained by eGain Communications Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Chambers, Petitioner,*

No. 91808-2.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Nos. 45392-4-II, 45399-l-II, and 45402-5-II, April 14, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1002. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
No. 10-11024.

#### Clarence Lasalle Rose, Petitioner v. Michael S. Evans, Warden.

565 U.S. 863, 132 S. Ct. 204,

181 L. Ed. 2d 109,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6233.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 414 Fed. Appx. 1.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19463]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / 
Notices

[[Page 39268]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Office of Procurement and Property Management; Proposed 
Information Collection, Comment Request

AGENCY: Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Office of Procurement and Property Management's 
intention to request the Office of Management and Budget approval of an 
information collection in support of Section 923 of the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 21, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Denise Hayes, USDA, OPPM, 
PMD, Room 1520-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Kathy Fay, (202) 720-3141, 
USDA, Room 1522-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Uniform Procedures for the Acquisition and Transfer of 
Excess Personal Property under 7 U.S.C. 2206a.
    OMB Number: Not yet assigned.
    Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval date.
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Frequency of Use: Annually.
    Type of Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.
    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 100.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100.
    Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Response: \1/2\ hour preparation 
x 200 requests.
    Need for and Use of Information: This information collection will 
be used to submit USDA's annual Non-Federal Recipient Report to the 
General Services Administration. The additional information requested 
requires eligible institutions to justify need and usability for excess 
personal property.
W. R. Ashworth,
Director, Office of Procurement and Property Management.
[FR Doc. 98-19463 Filed 7-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-XE-P
No. 11-5115.

#### Gregg Moore, Petitioner v. Illinois.

565 U.S. 890, 132 S. Ct. 270,

181 L. Ed. 2d 159,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5787,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 405 Ill. App. 3d 1201, 375 Ill. Dec. 699, 997 N.E.2d 1010.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18062]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. ER98-6-000 and ER98-6-001]


USGen New England, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Orders

July 1, 1998.
    USGen New England, Inc. (USGenNE) filed an application for 
Commission authorization to engage in wholesale power sales at market-
based rates, and for certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, 
USGenNE requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 
CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liabilities by USGenNE. On February 25, 1998, the Commission issued an 
Order that inadvertently did not include USGenNE's name in the Ordering 
Paragraphs that granted to USGenNE the waivers and blanket 
authorizations generally afforded to power marketers. On March 27, 
1998, USGenNE filed a Request For Clarification or, In The Alternative, 
Request For Rehearing of the Commission's February 25 Order. On June 
10, 1998, the Commission issued an Order on Clarification and Rehearing 
that clarified the earlier order regarding such waivers and blanket 
authorizations.
    The Commission's February 25, 1998 and the June 10, 1998 Orders 
granted the request for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the 
conditions found in Ordering Paragraphs (J), (K), and (M) of the 
February 25, 1998 Order:
    (J) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by USGenNE should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
    (K) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (J) above, USGenNE is hereby authorized to issue 
securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, 
indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another 
person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful 
object within the corporate purposes of USGenNE, compatible with the 
public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such 
purposes.
    (M) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of 
USGenNE's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities * * *.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is July 10, 1998.
    Copies of the full text of the Orders are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18062 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Quitting isn’t about what you give up. 

It’s about what you get back.

Rebecca, age 57, Florida

Rebecca struggled with depression. She thought 

smoking would help, but it just made her more 

depressed. When she quit smoking it changed 

her life, mentally and physically. Now she 

runs 5Ks and hopes to live to be one hundred. 

You can quit smoking. 

For free help, call

1-800-QUIT-NOW.

#CDCTips
No. 11-5314.

#### Daniel Apodaca, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 901, 132 S. Ct. 296,

181 L. Ed. 2d 179,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5666.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 641 F.3d 1077.
No. 10-1478.

#### Aubrey E. Henry, et ux., Petitioners v. Jefferson County Commission, et al.

565 U.S. 941, 132 S. Ct. 399,

181 L. Ed. 2d 255,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7407.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 637 F.3d 269.
No. 11-5446.

#### Angela Larkin, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 908, 132 S. Ct. 313,

181 L. Ed. 2d 192,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6050.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 629 F.3d 177.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2858]


The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade 
Controls; Notice of Information Collection

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection; DSP-5, Application/
Licenses for Permanent Export of Unclassified Defense Articles and 
Related Unclassified Technical Data.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following 
information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995. Comments should be submitted to OMB within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice.
    The following summarized the information collection proposal 
submitted to OMB:
    Type of Request: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously 
approved collection for which approval has expired.
    Origniating Office: The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, 
Office of Defense Trade Controls.
    Title of Information Collection: Application/Licenses for Permanent 
Export of Unclassified Defense Articles and Related Unclassified 
Technical Data.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Form Number: DSP-5.
    Respondents: Applicants for Export Licenses of Defense Articles and 
Related Technical Data.
    Estimaed Number of Respondents: 4,500.
    Average Hours Per Response: 30 minutes.
    Total Estimated Burden: 10,000 hours.
    Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to--
    <bullet> Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of the agency functions.
    <bullet> Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection.
    <bullet> Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected.
    <bullet> Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of technology.

FOR FURTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Copies of the proposed information 
collection and supporting documents may be obtained for Charles S. 
Cunningham, Directives Management Branch, Department of State, 
Washington, DC 20520, (202) 647-0596. Interested persons are invited to 
submit comment s regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the 
proposed survey by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent 
to: OMB, Ms. Victoria Wassmer, (202) 395-5871.

    Dated: April 30, 1998.
Andrew J. Winter,
Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-18324 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99-1

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of Interliant, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis J. Alfano,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my 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 issuer.




August 14, 2002                             /s/ Francis J. Alfano
                                            ---------------------
                                            Francis J. Alfano
                                            Chief Executive Officer
#### Vanessa Dennis, Respondent, v Marie Napoli et al., Defendants, and Paul J. Napoli, Appellant. Vanessa Dennis, Respondent, v Marie Napoli, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[49 NYS3d 652]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered August 17, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Paul J. Napoli’s motion to dismiss the causes of action for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort as against him, and granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction restraining defendant Marie Napoli from sending unsolicited written and verbal communications about plaintiff to plaintiff’s professional contacts, family, and friends and from posting derogatory comments about plaintiff on plaintiff’s social media profiles or pages on which plaintiff is tagged, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Paul J. Napoli authorized defendant Marie Napoli’s access to plaintiff’s work email account and personnel file and allowed Marie Napoli to use his personal email and Facebook accounts in her endeavor to harass and defame plaintiff. These allegations state causes of action for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and prima facie tort under a theory of concerted action liability *(see Bichler v Eli Lilly & Co.,*55 NY2d 571, 580-581 [1982]; *see e.g. Wilson v DiCaprio,*278 AD2d 25, 25-26 [1st Dept 2000]).

Plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and a balancing of the equities in her favor *{see Aon Risk Servs. v Cusack,*
      *447102 AD3d 461, 463-464 [1st Dept 2013]). We reject Marie Napoli’s argument that her unsolicited communications to plaintiff’s professional colleagues, friends, and family about plaintiff’s alleged sexual proclivities are constitutionally protected speech; the record supports plaintiff’s claims that these communications cause injury to her reputation, jeopardize her employment, and otherwise unnecessarily intrude upon her right to privacy *(see Ansonia Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v Ansonia Tenants’ Coalition,*253 AD2d 706 [1st Dept 1998]; *Bingham v Struve,*184 AD2d 85, 89 [1st Dept 1992]; *see generally People v Shack,*86 NY2d 529 [1995]). Moreover, contrary to defendant’s contention that it is overly broad, the preliminary injunction is narrowly tailored to protect plaintiff’s privacy.

Finally the court properly rejected defendant Paul Napoli’s contention that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the letter agreement. “The test for determining whether specific activities are within the scope of employment or purely personal is whether the activities are both reasonable and sufficiently work related under the circumstances” *(Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67*NY2d 246, 249 [1986]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, JJ.

[Prior Case History: 2015 NY Slip Op 31540(U).]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPT. 30, 1999 AND CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPT. 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
CONTAINED IN LODGIAN, INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPT. 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          29,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,971
<PP&E>                                       1,329,452
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,514,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,966
<BONDS>                                        884,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    175,000
<COMMON>                                           278
<OTHER-SE>                                     290,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,514,476
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               451,687
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  363,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,751
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,051
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  6,336
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,715
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
No. 11-5528.

#### Joseph Darvie, Petitioner v. M. Countryman, et al.

565 U.S. 912, 132 S. Ct. 324,

181 L. Ed. 2d 201,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6141,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.