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

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-1302

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dennis Jenne

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________ 

Submitted: October 15, 2020

 Filed: October 23, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
- 2 -

Dennis L. Jenne appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court1

imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, this court affirms.

Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because the district court considered unproven allegations relating to 

an ongoing investigation. This court concludes that the district court did not impose 

a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 

915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is 

reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); cf. United States v. 

Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines 

range is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). The 

record reflects that the court considered relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and 

did not give significant weight to an improper factor. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 917 

(district court abuses its discretion in imposing revocation sentence if it fails to 

consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant 

factor, or commits clear error of judgment). The revocation sentence was within the 

statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term 

is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony), (h) (length of new supervisedrelease term shall not exceed term authorized by statute for offense of conviction, 

less revocation prison terms), (k) (for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250, maximum term 

of supervised release is life). 

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of Iowa.
No. 10-10938.

#### Edgar Santos Arroyo, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 858, 132 S. Ct. 192,

181 L. Ed. 2d 100,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6064.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-51127

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FIDEL MENDEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Fidel Mendez Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 16-51129

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FIDEL MENDEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Miguel Mendez Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-134-1

USDC No. 1:13-CR-179-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-51127 Document: 00513975456 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2017
No. 16-51127

Cons w/ No. 16-51129

2

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fidel MendezHernandez 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). Mendez-Hernandez has filed a response. The record 

is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of MendezHernandez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to 

consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States 

v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Mendez-Hernandez’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 16-51127 Document: 00513975456 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2017
No. 11-5808.

#### Adan Lopez-Mondragon, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 922, 132 S. Ct. 349,

181 L. Ed. 2d 219,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6784.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 11-5440.

#### Victor Manuel Partida-Martinez, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 907, 132 S. Ct. 312,

181 L. Ed. 2d 191,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5836.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
From: Dave Eccleston

To: Bahner, Mark A.

Subject: RE: Aluminum sweat furnaces in MD?

Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:21:29 PM

Mark,

Thank you for your inquiry. I will have to check our website. We have not operated sweat furnaces in

years and they in general are going the way of the dinosaur in our industry. With the advent of

shredders and the eddy recovery systems the need for the large sweat furnaces are lessened. I’m not

sure if Maryland has any and if so maybe only one or two left. I would start with our national

organization as a source of information. It would have most of the large players as members.

www.isri.org I do know that there could be many small sweat furnaces in operation in the smaller yard,

we even had one up until around 2000. These are small units that can melt items around the size of a

car rim, one at a time, and in many cases fall under any reporting or regulatory requirements.

Good luck,

Dave



### David N. Eccleston, VP

Delmarva Recycling, Inc

909 Boundary Street

Salisbury

, MD 21801

From: Bahner, Mark A. [mailto:bahner@rti.org]

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:40 PM

To: Decclest@delmarvarecycling.com

Subject: Aluminum sweat furnaces in MD?

Dear Mr. Eccleston:

I work for RTI, International. My company does contract research for the U.S. EPA. We are interested

in getting an idea of the number and locations of sweat furnaces in the U.S. My understanding from

your website is that your company currently operates two sweat furnaces at your Boundary Street

location (and only at that location). Or is this incorrect?

http://delmarvarecycling.com/contact/contact.htm

Do you have any estimate of the number of sweat furnaces operating in your state or in the U.S.

, or

could you suggest someone to contact who might be able to estimate those numbers?

Thank you,

Mark Bahner

Research

Mark A. Bahner

RTI, International

P.O. Box 12194

, 3040 Cornwallis RoadResearch Triangle Park

, NC 27709-2194



### Phone: (919) 541-6016

Fax: (919) 541-7155

Email: bahner@rti.org

Internet: http://www.rti.org
No. 11-5514.

#### Melvin Evins Nance, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 912, 132 S. Ct. 322,

181 L. Ed. 2d 200,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5794.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 426 Fed. Appx. 801.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM JACKSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 359 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM JACKSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 360 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of May, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 11-5310.

#### Peter Hinojos, Petitioner v. California.

565 U.S. 901, 132 S. Ct. 295,

181 L. Ed. 2d 179,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5566.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS  ENDED JUNE 30,  2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,167,892
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,167,892
<PP&E>                                         45,416
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,239,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          347,984
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       14,951
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,876,507
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,239,442
<SALES>                                        408,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               408,823
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (767,081)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (22,036)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (358,258)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (358,258)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
CEQ comments on IASC draft Ammonia Assessment

Foster, Foster,Stiven to: IRIS 03/01/2012 03:27 PM

Cc: "Lunn, Molly", "Butler, Melissa (Intern)"

From: "Foster, Stiven" 

To: IRIS

Cc: "Lunn, Molly" , "Butler, Melissa (Intern)" 

History:

Our office appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft ammonia assessment . The 

assessment is clearly written and the analyses appear to be scientifically sound. This is the second 

assessment provided to the interagency reviewers that uses the new format , which we continue to 

support. 

We have a few minor comments on the format, including a suggestion that EPA consider reversing the 

order of the synthesis of major toxicological effects (section 1.1) and the weight of evidence evaluation 

for toxicological effects (1.2). The current order makes sense from an analytical perspective, but from 

a reader’s perspective it might be helpful to start with the highest level review. We would also suggest 

that the synthesis section be retitled summary of major toxicological effects . 

Because the new format presents less information about individual studies it might be helpful to include 

additional references to the HERO. Currently, the database is mentioned in the preamble and in the 

literature search section, but some readers may not focus these sections. We suggest that you add 

references to HERO in the Hazard ID chapter and Appendix A. 

We do not have any substantive comments on the content of this assessment . The conclusion that 

there are insufficient data to derive an RfD is justified. Likewise, the conclusion that there is 

inadequate information to assess the carcinogenic potential is reasonable. The derivation of the RfC, 

including the choice of critical study/endpoint, and use of uncertainty factors, seems appropriate. 

We thank you again for the opportunity to review this assessment and look forward the interagency 

discussion. 

Regards, 

Stiven Foster

Deputy Associate Director for Chemical Regulations

Council on Environmental Quality
No. 11-6006.

#### Julio Adalberto Flores-Vasquez, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 927, 132 S. Ct. 361,

181 L. Ed. 2d 228,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7061.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 641 F.3d 667.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Falcon Ridge Development Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I,
Fred M. Montano, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
USC ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004,
that to the best of my 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.


                                         /s/ Fred M. Montano
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Fred M. Montano, Chief Executive Officer
* The HONORABLE THOMAS M. REAVLEY, United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

1 The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. No. 95-2301

ROBERT HALL, doing business * as H&H Towel Company, * * Appeal from the United Plaintiff-Appellee, * States District Court * for the Eastern District v. * of Arkansas * FIRST FINANCIAL INSURANCE * [UNPUBLISHED] COMPANY, * * Defendant-Appellant, *

Submitted: January 11, 1996

Filed: February 26, 1996

Before LOKEN, REAVLEY * and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

First Financial Insurance Company appeals a judgment entered against it and in favor of Robert Hall d/b/a H & H Towel Company. After reviewing the record and arguments of the parties, we conclude that Hall was qualified to testify as to the value of the inventory insured by First Financial, and that the district
court 1 did not err in denying the motion for directed judgment. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its-2- discretion in denying First Financial’s motion for mistrial. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 11-6728.

#### Francis Leroy McLain, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1032, 132 S. Ct. 603,

181 L. Ed. 2d 419,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8185.

November 14, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 5, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 646 F.3d 599.
# C_2016383EN.01001001.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission

(Case T-460/13) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition by object - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Duration of the Commission’s investigation))

(2016/C 383/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (Vadodara, India) and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Vidal, A. Penny, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Vollrath, F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by D. Bailey, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

---
No. 11M37.

#### Yong I. Lee and Chun S. Chang, Petitioners v. Central Presbytery of the Korean Presbyterian Church of America.

565 U.S. 975, 132 S. Ct. 542,

181 L. Ed. 2d 344,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7719.

October 31, 2011.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 403 Ill. App. 3d 1098, 373 Ill. Dec. 146, 993 N.E.2d 146.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00231-CR

EX PARTE ALLEN D. FOSTER

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-2343-C2A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Allen D. Foster filed an appeal of what appeared to be a writ of habeas corpus 

filed simultaneously with the trial court. By letter dated August 1, 2013, the Clerk of 

this Court notified Foster that his appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared 

the trial court had not ruled on his application for writ of habeas corpus and therefore, 

there was no final, appealable order to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3; 26.2. By the 

same letter, the Clerk warned Foster that, unless a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal was filed within 14 days of the date of the letter, the appeal 

would be dismissed. More than 14 days have passed, and Foster has not filed a 
Ex parte Foster Page 2

response to the Clerk’s letter. The only correspondence from Foster since the issuance 

of the Clerk’s letter was an inquiry about his attorney on appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 29, 2013

Do not publish 

[CR25]
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

WEAPON(S) AND AMMUNITION RECEIPT

WEAPON TYPE(S) AND SERIAL NUMBER(S)

DLA FORM 563a, AUG 79 (EG)

REPLACES ALL SIMILAR PURPOSE LOCAL FORMS WHICH ARE OBSOLETE

INSTRUCTIONS

1. THIS CARD WILL BE SURRENDERED EACH TIME

THE WEAPON(S) IS/ARE DRAWN FROM THE ARMS

ROOM.

2. LOSS OF THIS CARD WILL BE REPORTED TO THE

COMMAND SECURITY OFFICE IMMEDIATELY.

RECEIPT NUMBER

PERMIT NUMBER

I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE WEAPON(S) AND LOAD(S)

OF AMMUNITION

TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF HOLDER

SIGNATURE OF HOLDER

TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF ISSUING OFFICIAL

SIGNATURE OF ISSUING OFFICIAL
Tdap Vaccine for

Preteens and Teens

All preteens should get one Tdap shot when they are

11 or 12 years old to help protect against tetanus,

diphtheria, and whooping cough. Talk to your child’s

doctor or nurse if they haven’t gotten this vaccine yet.

Why does my child need 

a Tdap vaccine?

Babies and young children get shots called DTaP to help protect them from diphtheria, tetanus, and 

whooping cough (pertussis). But as children get older, the protection from these shots starts to decrease. 

The Tdap vaccine helps protect your preteen or teen from the same diseases as the DTaP shots.

Disease Symptoms/Complications Is it serious?

Tetanus

• Spasms (painful muscle cramps in 

the jaw and neck muscles or stomach)

• Breathing problems

• Painful muscle stiffness all over 

the body

• Yes. Kids who get tetanus could spend 

weeks in intensive care.

• As many as 1 out of 5 people who get 

tetanus will die from it.

Diphtheria

• Thick coating in the back of the 

throat that can make it hard to 

breathe and swallow

• Paralysis

• Heart failure

• Yes. About 1 out of 10 people who 

get diphtheria will die from it.

Whooping 

Cough

• Bad cough that can make it difficult 

to breathe after coughing fits

• Cough that can last for many weeks

• Violent coughing fits with vomiting, 

which can lead to broken ribs

• Yes. It can be serious for people of 

all ages, but especially serious, even 

deadly, for babies.

• Whooping cough can also cause your 

child to miss school and other activities.

Is the Tdap vaccine

safe for my child?

Researchers have studied the Tdap shot very carefully and it is shown to be very safe. Like any vaccine 

or medicine, the Tdap shot can cause side effects. The most common side effects are mild and include 

redness and soreness in the arm where the shot was given, headache, fever, or tiredness.

Some preteens and teens might faint after getting the Tdap vaccine or any shot. To help avoid fainting and 

injuries related to fainting, preteens and teens should sit or lie down when they get a shot and then for about 

15 minutes after getting the shot. Serious side effects from the Tdap shot are rare.

How can I get help 

paying for these 

vaccines?

Most health insurance plans cover routine vaccinations. The Vaccines for Children (VFC) program also 

provides vaccines for children 18 years and younger who are uninsured, underinsured, Medicaid-eligible, 

American Indian, or Alaska Native. Learn more at www.cdc.gov/Features/VFCprogram.

Talk to your child’s doctor or nurse about the Tdap vaccine, 

or visit www.cdc.gov/vaccines/Tdap

Last updated JULY 2019
Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-30735) pertaining to the Farrel Corporation 1997 Employees' Stock
Purchase Plan of our reports dated February 20, 2003, except for the third
paragraph of Note 8, as to which the date is March 25, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Farrel Corporation included in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                                 /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
March 25, 2003


                                 Page 54 of 56
No. 11-5792.

#### Albert Morgan, Jr., Petitioner v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

565 U.S. 940, 132 S. Ct. 448,

181 L. Ed. 2d 254,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7411.

October 11, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 1, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 428 Fed. Appx. 974.