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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPTEMBER 29, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-10911 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20793-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

ALEXIS FUENTES, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(September 29, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Alexis Fuentes appeals his 71-month sentence, imposed after he pleaded

guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Fuentes

contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because

the district court failed to articulate sufficient findings to support its length. His

sentence fell at the top of the applicable 57–71 month Guidelines range.

We review a sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness under a

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41

128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). This Court will not reverse a district court so long as the

district court’s ruling does not constitute a clear error of judgment. United States

v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008). Ordinarily, we expect sentences

within the recommended Guidelines range to be reasonable. United States v.

Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

The record here shows that Fuentes’s argument is without merit. The

district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors, and clearly articulated its reasoning for concluding that a

sentence at the high-end of the Guidelines range was necessary to comply with the

purposes of § 3553(a). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its

discretion, and we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

2
**CH 2**

**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP8.45. APPENDIX 8.45**

**REPLY TO FOLLOW-UP FOR MATERIEL RETURNS PROGRAM CREDIT**

(See DLM 4000.25 Volume 4, Appendix 3)

AP3.45-1

*1*

APPENDIX 3.45

AP8.45-1

APPENDIX 8.45
No. 11-5582.

#### Peter Richard Rosa, Petitioner v. Lupe Martinez, Secretary, New Mexico Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 915, 132 S. Ct. 331,

181 L. Ed. 2d 206,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6252.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 422 Fed. Appx. 730.
No. 10-11245.

#### Thomas E. Cotton, Petitioner v. Bryans Land Company, LLC.

565 U.S. 874, 132 S. Ct. 233,

181 L. Ed. 2d 131,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6762.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REPORTING COSTS

1. DATE 2. TYPE OF REPORT 3. RCS NUMBER

INTERNAL DLA DoD a. CURRENT RCS NUMBER b. EXPIRATION DATE

INTERAGENCY

4. TITLE OF REPORT 5. ACTION OFFICER

a. NAME b. OFFICE SYMBOL c. TELEPHONE NUMBER

NOTE: ESTIMATES OF REPORTING COSTS SHOULD BE PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DLAR 7750.1, Encl. 4.

CATEGORY OF COST ($)

ELEMENT OF COST

DEVELOPMENTAL OPERATIONAL USER (1)

(2) (3) (4)

6.

DIRECT COSTS

10. REMARKS

DLA FORM 133a, APR 93 (EG) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE. PDF (DLA)

a. PERSONNEL

b. EQUIPMENT

c. SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS

d. OTHER

e. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS

7. OVERHEAD ( % OF 6. a.)

8. COST FOR ONE REPORT (Line 6.e. + Line 7.)

9. ANNUAL COST (Line 8. x frequency per year)
AAM-12-096-E 

December 12, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10404 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1331 

Mr. Itai Shoshani 

Chief Pilot 

Zip Aviation 

14 Hangar Road 

White Plains, NY 10604 

Dear Mr. Shoshani: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated November 22, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Zip Aviation (Zip) for an exemption from part 120 to allow Zip, which is 

operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Zip. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 
2 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Zip Aviation an exemption from part 120 to the extent 

necessary to allow Zip, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and 

limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Zip are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while 

conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Zip part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on December 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 1, 2021

No. 04-21-00196-CR

Ricky Maurice RICHARDSON, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5898

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On April 14, 2021, the trial court signed a judgment revoking appellant’s community 

supervision. The clerk’s record does not include the trial court’s certification of defendant’s 

right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) 

requires the trial court to sign a certification of the defendant’s right of appeal each time it enters 

a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. Rule 25.2(d) requires the clerk’s record to include 

the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal under Rule 25.2(a)(2). Tex. R. 

App. P. 25.2(d). Although this certification “should be part of the record when notice is filed,” it 

“may be added by timely amendment or supplementation under this rule or . . . by order of the 

appellate court under Rule 34.5(c)(2).” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); see also Tex. R. App. P. 

34.5(c)(2) (explaining that “[i]f the appellate court in a criminal case orders the trial court to 

prepare and file . . . [a] certification of the defendant’s right of appeal as required by these rules, 

the trial court clerk must prepare, certify, and file in the appellate court a supplemental clerk’s 

record”). If a certification showing the defendant has the right to appeal is not made part of the 

record under these rules, the appeal must be dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

Because the clerk’s record does not include the trial court’s certification of defendant’s 

right of appeal following revocation of his community supervision, we ORDER the trial court, if 

it has not yet signed a certification of defendants right of appeal, to sign such a certification on 

or before July 12, 2021. We further ORDER the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record containing the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal on or before July 

21, 2021.
_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of July, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<page> 					  EXHIBIT 31.01

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President of Demeter Management Corporation
("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant, certify that:

1.		I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3.		Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;

4.		The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and


<page>

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of Demeter's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:  November 14, 2003    /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman
                               Jeffrey A. Rothman
                               President,
                               Demeter Management Corporation,
                               general partner of the registrant
Defense Logistics Agency

The Nation’s Combat Logistics Support Agency

Small Business Innovation Programs

Explored Innovations

Securing Resources for US Defense & Commercial Industries 

TOPIC NUMBER:

DLA181-009

TOPIC TITLE:

Increase 

Competition through 

Small Business 

Source Approval 

Request (SAR) for 

DLA Nuclear 

Enterprise Support 

Office (NESO) NSNs.

CONTRACT 

NUMBER:

SP4701-18-P-0087

SBIP COMPANY:

Parts Life, Inc.

Moorestown, NJ

TECHNICAL 

PROJECT 

OFFICE:

Reverse Engineering

PUBLISHED:

2019

Parts Life, Inc., Supports the Nuclear Enterprise by Reverse 

Engineering Seals for the Air Launched Cruise Missile

The Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), a critical national asset designed in the 1970s to

deploy from the B52 Stratofortress is the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) top weapons

system priority. Until recently, the missile system required an alternate source of supply

for non-metallic RAM Fin seals – critical parts required to keep the system operational.

Legacy suppliers for the aging weapons system no longer produced the seals and the DLA

Aviation's Nuclear Enterprise Support Office (NESO) worked for four years to procure the

NUCLEAR MODERNIZATION

DLA Seals. Photo courtesy of Parts Life, Inc., 2018

parts, withoutsuccess.

To solve this critical requirement gap, DLA’s

Small Business Innovation Programs (SBIP)

released a competitive solicitation to field

small businesses capable of taking on the

challenge. The contract was awarded to

Parts Life, Inc., a small business based out

of Moorestown, NJ, which specializes in

custom obsolescence supply chain

solutions. Within a year, Parts Life created

the critically needed seals for the ALCM.

Mr. Stephen Connor, Program Manager for

the NESO Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile

(ICBM) /ALCM Weapon Systems Program

said, “I would like to offer my sincerest

appreciation for the efforts Parts Life, Inc.

put forth the last year. The Air Force

Engineering Support Activity (ESA), the

ALCM, the F-107 Program Offices and I

have been trying for over four years to

develop an industrial base to support these

Made in the USA

critical nuclear platforms to no avail. These efforts show how great things can be

accomplished with close collaboration between the Department of Defense and key

sectors of the industrial base.”

The project culminated in the ESA approving Parts Life, Inc., as a qualified source for the

seals. Parts Life, Inc. is an ISO 9001: 2015, AS9100 D certified business.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.
(1) Adjusting Price $20.23 CWT

(2) Base Price $19.60 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.63

(4) Price change per gallon $0.0542

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0271

Price change per quart $0.0135

Price change per pint $0.0068

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0051

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0042

Price change per half pint $0.0034

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.05

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.03

Price adjustment per quart $0.01

Price adjustment per pint $0.01

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.01

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. I)

Based on California Dept. of Food and Agriculture Announcement of Minimum Prices

 Effective Date: August 4, 2013
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILTONS BIER GARDEN and MORE, LLC, DOUGLAS HERBST, and

ANGELA TOCON,

Appellants,

v.

ROGER QUISENBERRY,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-3697

[July 27, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. CACE13-006952 and 

CACE15-005838.

Dean J. Trantalis and H. Maxwell Wihnyk of Trantalis & Associates, 

Wilton Manors, for appellants.

Andrew M. Schwartz of Andrew M. Schwartz, P.A., Boca Raton, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
TABLE 2. Percentage of persons aged 18–64 years who reported receiving influenza or
 

pneumococcal vaccine, by age and selected high-risk medical conditions — National Health
 

Interview Survey, United States, 1999*
 

High-risk condition† 

Received influenza vaccine 

during previous 12 mos 

Ever received 

pneumococcal vaccine 

18–49 yrs 

(n=18,227) 

50–64 yrs 

(n=6,107) 

18–49 yrs 

(n=17,843) 

50–64 yrs 

(n=6,014) 

% (95% CI‡) % (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI) 

Ever had Diabetes 32.7 (±5.4) 50.9 (±4.6) 16.0 (±4.6) 31.1 (±4.6) 

Asthma or chronic 

bronchitis during the 

previous year, or ever 

had emphysema 

22.6 (±2.7) 48.2 (±4.6) 12.2 (±2.2) 32.6 (±4.2) 

Ever had a heart 

attack, coronary heart 

disease, angina, or 

other chronic heart 

condition 

21.3 (±3.1) 46.2 (±3.8) 8.7 (±2.1) 23.3 (±3.0) 

Chronic kidney disease 

during the previous 

year 

30.8 (±9.6) 45.3 (±11.0) 17.4 (±7.2) 23.3 (±9.3) 

Cancer diagnosed in 

previous year or ever 

had selected cancers† 

20.8 (±8.9) 36.5(±12.0) § 37.9 (±13.0) 

Liver disease during 

the previous year ** - ** - 15.2 (±7.0) 29.4 (±10.4) 

None of the above highrisk conditions 15.4 (±0.8) 29.7 (±1.5) 4.9 (±0.4) 8.9 (±1.0) 

*Provisional release data, National Health Interview Survey, 1999. n=24,799. Sample
 

sizes might not total 24,799 because persons with unknown vaccination status were
 

excluded from analysis. 


†The prevalences of influenza and pneumococcal vaccination among persons aged 18–64 years
 

were estimated for those at high risk for complications caused by these infections.
 

Persons who indicated more than one condition were included in the calculation of
 

vaccination coverage for each condition reported. Persons categorized as “high risk” for
 

influenza-related complications self-reported one or more of the following: Ever being
 

told by a physician they had diabetes, emphysema, coronary heart disease, angina, heart
 

attack or other heart condition; being diagnosed with cancer in the past 12 months
 

(excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) or ever being told by a physician they have
 

lymphoma, leukemia or blood cancer; in the past 12 months being told by a physician they
 

have chronic bronchitis or weak or failing kidneys; or reporting an asthma episode or
 

attack in the past 12 months. Persons categorized as “high risk” for pneumococcalrelated complications met the above criteria, excluding asthma, or reported liver disease
 

during the past 12 months. 


‡Confidence interval. 95% CIs were calculated by multiplying the standard error by ±1.96.
 

§The standard of reliability is RSE <0.3 (where RSE = the ratio of the standard error and
 

the prevalence). This estimate did not meet that standard, or the denominator was <30. 


**Not included as a high-risk condition for which influenza vaccination is recommended.
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


An official website of the United States government Here's how you know
 Official icon**Official websites use .gov**
				A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Lock icon**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
				A lock (  ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
	CDC LogoCDC Logo
 Search

		×
			Vaccines site
			Vaccines site

				All CDC
				Submit


ChildVaxView





Vaccination Coverage among Young Children (0 – 35 Months)						Print
																Related Pages
										ChildVaxView
User Quick Guide | Download Data Table | Back to ChildVaxView main page
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  September 28, 2020						Source: 	National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homeChildVaxView Home
ChildVaxView Interactive!
Publications and Resources
Data Source
Objectives, Targets, and Indicators
For Specific Groupsplus icon
Health Care Professionals
Parents
NIS-Child Survey Participants
Media


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3168 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain legal fees 

and investment fees to be taken into account as miscellaneous itemized 

deductions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2019 

Mr. FLORES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain legal fees and investment fees to be taken into 

account as miscellaneous itemized deductions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FEES TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS MIS4 CELLANEOUS ITEMIZED DEDUCTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 67(g) of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following: ‘‘In the case of any legal fees, or investment 

8 fees, paid or incurred by an individual for the production 

9 of income or in connection with the performance of servVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:16 Jun 12, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3168.IH H3168

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3168 IH

1 ices as an employee, which but for the preceding sentence 

2 would be taken into account as a miscellaneous itemized 

3 deduction under subsection (a) for any such taxable year, 

4 the preceding sentence shall not apply.’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact7 ment of Public Law 115–97. 

8 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

9 (1) LEGAL FEES.—The term ‘‘legal fees’’ shall 

10 include any fee or expense paid or incurred to estab11 lish the basis of a settlement agreement. 

12 (2) INVESTMENT FEES.—The term ‘‘investment 

13 fees’’ means any fee or expense paid or incurred for 

14 the management of investments. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS