alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3651

___________________________ United States of America

Plaintiff Appellee

v. Jaktine Alphonso Moore, also known as Jak

Defendant Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________ Submitted: June 15, 2020 Filed: August 12, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. In 2010, Jaktine Alphonso Moore was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), because hepreviously had been convicted of two serious drug felony offenses. We affirmed

Moore’s sentence. United States v. Moore, 411 Fed App’x 922, 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). The district court 1 granted Moore’s July 2019 motion to reduce his sentence under section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222, and imposed a sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment. We affirm. Moore argues that the district court did not adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors because it “adjudicated Moore’s motion without a hearing, oral argument, or documentary evidence.” See Appellant’s Br. 9. “A district court can conduct a complete review without a hearing,” however. United States v. Williams, 943 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2019); see also United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that review under section 404 means only that “a district court considered [petitioner’s] arguments in the motion and had a reasoned basis for its decision” (alteration in original) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). The district court’s order states that it had “carefully considered all the statutory sentencing factors,” noting that Moore had participated in a drug education program and that the sentences of some of Moore’s co-conspirators were lower than Moore’s. See D. Ct. Order of Oct. 22, 2019, at 4-5. The court weighed those factors against the quantity of drugs attributed to Moore in the conspiracy, his obstruction of justice, his lengthy criminal history, and his possession of amphetamine while in prison. In light of these aspects of Moore’s record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to 360 months’ imprisonment. See Williams, 943 F.3d at 843 (standard of review);United States v. King, 898 F.3d 797, 810 (8th Cir. 2018) (“The district court’s decision not to weigh mitigating factors as heavily as [a defendant] would have preferred does not justify reversal.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)). The sentence not being substantively unreasonable, it is affirmed.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5245 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the ‘‘Matthew Lyon Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2006 

Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. GRIJALVA, 

Mr. HINCHEY, and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, 

as the ‘‘Matthew Lyon Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MATTHEW LYON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, 

6 Vermont, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Matthew 

7 Lyon Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5245 IH 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Matthew Lyon Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
| 1. | The                Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and                  |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | The                information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company.                            |

|   Date:                March                14, 2007 |   /s/                Joseph D. Reid              Joseph                D. ReidChief                Executive Officer |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Presidential Documents

11637 

Federal Register 

Vol. 74, No. 51 

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8352 of March 13, 2009 

National Poison Prevention Week, 2009 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Since 1962, National Poison Prevention Week has helped raise awareness 

about the dangers of potentially poisonous substances and has provided 

the opportunity to educate fellow Americans about preventing and responding to poisonings. This education effort is critical to the well-being of children 

and adults alike, as both remain susceptible to poison exposure. 

According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), 

more than two million potential poison exposures are reported to the Nation’s 

61 poison control centers every year. More than half of those exposures 

involve children aged five and under. The AAPCC also reports that more 

than one thousand deaths due to poisoning take place in the United States 

every year. 

Poisoning most frequently involves medicines and typical household chemicals, including cleaning supplies and personal care products. When improperly stored, these substances can present threats to the health and wellbeing of people subject to exposure. Taking simple steps can protect family 

and friends from harm. For example, keeping poisonous materials in their 

original containers, placing these materials out of children’s reach, following 

handling instructions and recommended dosages, and installing carbon monoxide detectors can all help save lives. More information can be found 

at www.aapcc.org. In the event of a potential poisoning, experts at local 

poison control centers can be reached at 1–800–222–1222. As children and 

adults suffer from poison exposures, all Americans should take seriously 

this grave health risk. 

To encourage Americans to learn more about the dangers of accidental 

poisonings and to take appropriate preventive measures, the Congress, by 

joint resolution approved September 26, 1961, as amended (75 Stat. 681), 

has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the third week of March each year as ‘‘National Poison Prevention 

Week.’’ I encourage all Americans to familiarize themselves with this issue 

and take steps to protect their families. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States 

of America, do hereby proclaim March 15 through March 21, 2009, as 

National Poison Prevention Week. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with FEDREGD0

11638 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 18, 2009 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day 

of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence 

of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third. 

[FR Doc. E9–6092 

Filed 3–17–09; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3195–W9–P 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with FEDREGD0OB#1.EPS</GPH>
Aaron ANDREWS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. ED 105822

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: November 27, 2018

Susan A. DeGeorge, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.

Julia E. Neidhardt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for Respondent/Respondent.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*902*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Andrews appeals from the motion court's order denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.0351 after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

All rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. 2015, unless otherwise indicated.
Before the 

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

 WASHINGTON, DC 

INTRA ALASKA BUSH MAIL RATES Docket OST-2003-14694 

NOTE CONCERNING DOCUMENT FILED BY 

CONSOLIDATED CARRIERS 

 

Communications with respect to this 

document should be addressed to: 

 Joseph Anzalone, Esq. 

 Office of General Counsel 

 United States Postal Service 

 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW 

 Washington, DC 20260-1127 

 joseph.anzalone@usps.gov 

Date Filed: March 2, 2011 

1
2

The Postal Service notes that on March 1, 2011, a document from Mr. Hank Myers entitled 

“Reply of the Consolidated Carriers to the USPS and Peninsula Airways Comments,” dated 

March 1, 2011, was allegedly added to Docket OST-2003-14694. It offers a “response” to 

comments earlier filed by other parties, including the Postal Service, pursuant to the 

Department’s February 11, 2011 notice allowing parties to respond to comments filed by the 

Consolidated Carriers on January 27, 2011, in response to Show Cause Order 2010-12-28. 

In the Department’s February 11, 2011 notice, the Department stipulated that because the 

February 11 notice was the second extension for comments associated with Show Cause Order 

2010-12-28, the Department did “not anticipate granting any further extensions.” 

Accordingly, given that Mr. Myers’ submission is unauthorized, the Postal Service does not seek 

to respond to it. However, should the Department revise its view and undertake to consider this 

filing, the Postal Service respectfully requests that it and all affected carriers have a reasonable 

opportunity to reply to the submission.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3372

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. James A. Widtfeldt lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ Submitted: September 29, 2020 Filed: October 8, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. James Widtfeldt appeals the district court’s 1 order granting the government’s motion for summary judgment in its action to collect unpaid gift and estate taxes

1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.owed by Widtfeldt, and to order the sale of his property to satisfy his tax liability.

Following careful de novo review, see United States v. Scherping, 187 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 1999), we agree with the district court that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding Widtfeldt’s personal liability for the unpaid taxes, see 26 U.S.C. § 6324(a) (estate tax liability), § 6324(b) (gift tax liability); see also Widtfeldt v. Comm’r, 449 Fed. Appx. 561 (8th Cir. 2012) (unpublished per curiam). The district court’s issuance of the order of sale was also proper. See 26 U.S.C. § 7403 (authorizing action to enforce lien or to subject property to payment of tax debt). The judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Widtfeldt’s pending motions are denied as moot.

______________________________

-2-
#### D. W. Smith *v.*Honorable George S. Wallace, *Special Judge, etc.*

(No. 8302)

Submitted October 23, 1935.

Decided November 5, 1935.

*Thomas West,*for petitioner.

*W. H. Norton*and *Jean F. Smith,*for respondents.

Hatcher, Judge:

The petitioner seeks to prohibit the enforcement of two orders entered by the respondent as special judge of the circuit court on June 7 and 28, 1935, respectively, in the cause of Branchland Pipe & Supply Co. v. King, Trustee, et al. The petitioner alleges lack of jurisdiction to enter the orders.

*547A decree had been entered in the Branchland cause at a special term of the court held on March 16, 1934, adjudicating liens on certain real property and directing its sale. The property was sold April 28, 1934, the sale and the report of commissioners thereon were confirmed May 26, 1934, and the cause omitted from the docket May 31, 1934. The order of June 7, 1935, set aside the decree of March 16, 1934, and the subsequent proceedings auxiliary thereto. The order of June 28, 1935, directed a resale of the property.

The respondent would justify the orders of June 7 and 28, 1935, on the ground that no notice of the decree entered at the special term (March 16, 1934) was given by the plaintiff to the interested parties, and that a local court rule required such notice.

The law is settled in this jurisdiction that courts have inherent power to establish such a rule as the one herein (so essential to the administration of justice), that the rule has the effect of law, and that a judgment rendered in violation thereof “is properly set aside upon motion of the party injuriously affected thereby.” *Star Piano Co.*v. *Burgner,*89 W. Va. 475, 109 S. E. 491. Accord: *Hall*v. *O’Brien,*97 W. Va. 77, 124 S. E. 507; *Altmeyer*v. *Fassig,*114 W. Va. 266, 171 S. E. 529. But a general replication was filed to the answer of this respondent, placing in issue the existence of the rule invoked. The record herein does not contain the rule or any evidence relating to the rule. (See generally thereon 15 C. J., subject Courts, sec. 296.) Moreover, in every West Virginia case examined on this subject notice of the motion was given — a wholesome prerequisite. See *Rr. Co.*v. *Rr. Co.,*17 W. Va. 812, 835; 46 C. J. on Notice, see. 49. No notice was given to the interested parties of the motion of June 7, 1935. Thus the movant would have achieved his purpose by the very practice because of which he would upturn the decree of March 16, 1934. Two wrongs no more make right at law than in society. We do not overlook a recital in the order of June 7, 1935, that when the motion was made “counsel for plaintiff and other interested parties” were present in court. At that time, however, the Branchland cause had been off the docket for more than a year. There is no evidence that *548counsel still represented bis former clients, and tbe circumstances afford no presumption tbat be did. Consequently, we are of opinion tbat tbe mere presence of sucb counsel in court did not satisfy tbe requirement that tbe movant give formal notice of bis motion.

Tbe writ is accordingly awarded.

*Writ awarded.*
In re the Marriage of: Gary GALLEBERG, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Kristen GALLEBERG, Appellant.

No. ED 105879

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: September 11, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied October 15, 2018

Samuel J. Hais, Clayton, MO, for appellant.

Terry L. Jones, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.

Sarah S. Pleban, Guard Ad Litem.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated case, mother, Kristen Schattgen Galleberg, and father, Gary Galleberg, appeal the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dissolving their marriage, distributing the property and debt, and ordering maintenance, child support, and payment of the child's private-school tuition. The parties settled child-custody issues before trial. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with *60a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the trial court's judgment. Rule 84.16(b)(1).1

1

Father's motion to strike mother's cross-response and reply brief is denied. Mother's motion to strike father's reply brief is granted. Rule 84.04(i) states in relevant part that "[t]he respondent may file a reply brief in reply to appellant's response to the issues presented by respondent's appeal." In his reply brief, however, father again argues in opposition to mother's points on appeal rather than countering mother's responsive arguments to father's points on appeal.
Preston S. HARLOW, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106472

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: October 16, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 14, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 29, 2019

FOR APPELLANTS: Lisa M. Stroup, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, Saint Louis, Missouri 65102.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Shaun J. Mackelprang, Joshua Hawley, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before James M. Dowd, J., Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., and Lawrence E. Mooney, J.

*201***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Preston Harlow appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.0351 motion for post-conviction relief. Harlow claims that the motion court clearly erred because his conviction of the class C felony of stealing and sentence of seven years' imprisonment were unlawful under the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in *State v. Bazell* , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), and counsel therefore gave ineffective assistance by advising him to plead guilty. We affirm.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

All rules references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2017).
exv10w86






Exhibit 10.86




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE NACCO MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC.

UNFUNDED BENEFIT PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective April 24, 2009)




          NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc. hereby adopts this Amendment No. 1 to the NACCO Materials
Handling Group, Inc. Unfunded Benefit Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective April 24, 2009) (the
“Plan”), to be effective January 1, 2010. Words used herein with initial capital letters which are
defined in the Plan are used herein as so defined.




Section 1




          Section 2.15 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:




     “Section 2.19. ROTCE shall mean the consolidated return on total capital employed of
NACCO as determined by NACCO for a particular Plan Year.”



Section 2




     Section 5.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



               “(a) In General. Except as otherwise described in the Plan, for periods on and after
January 1, 2010, at the end of each calendar month during a Plan Year through the end of the month
prior to the payment date, the Accounts of the Covered Employees shall be credited with an amount
determined by multiplying such Participant’s average Sub-Account balance during such month by 5%.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the ROTCE determined for such Plan Year exceeds
the rate credited under the preceding sentence to the Excess Profit Sharing Sub-Account, Basic
Excess Deferral Sub-Account, Basic Excess 401(k) Sub-Account and Basic Excess Matching Sub-Account,
such Sub-Accounts shall retroactively be credited with the excess (if any) of (i) the amount
determined under the preceding sentence over (ii) the amount determined by multiplying the
Participant’s Sub-Account balance during each month of such Plan Year by the ROTCE determined for
such Plan Year, compounded monthly. This ROTCE calculation shall be made during the month in which
the Participant incurs a Termination of Employment and shall be based on the year-to-date ROTCE for
the month ending prior to the date the Participant incurred a Termination of Employment, as
calculated by NACCO. For any subsequent month following such Termination, such ROTCE calculation
shall not apply.”


EXECUTED this 10th day of November, 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NACCO MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Charles A. Bittenbender
 	 
	 	 	Title: Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.1


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

 In connection with the Annual Report of First Cash Financial Services,  Inc.
 (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), we, Rick L. Wessel and  R. Douglas Orr each certify, pursuant  to
 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-
 Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

      (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
           or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


 Date:  March 14, 2007

 /s/ Rick L. Wessel
 ------------------
 Rick L. Wessel
 Chief Executive Officer

 /s/ R. Douglas Orr
 ------------------
 R. Douglas Orr
 Chief Financial Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIN MING LAM,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73833

Agency No. A070-965-173

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Sin Ming Lam, a native of China and citizen of Portugal, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

FILED

MAY 22 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73833

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

The BIA dismissed Lam’s appeal because he failed to challenge the bases

for the IJ’s decision denying relief. Accordingly, the arguments Lam presents are

unexhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to review them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358

F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.