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

No. 15

- 11259 c/w No. 16

- 10103 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JAMES LEE WILLIAMS, II, also known as James Lee Williams , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 225

- 1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Lee Williams, II, federal prisoner # 97021

- 079, appeals the district court’s denial of his two motions under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct the Presentence Report ( “ PSR ” ) Addendum that was used by the district court in determining his sentence. Williams is serving a

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 October 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-11259 Document: 00513727026 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2016No. 15

- 11259 & No. 16

- 10103

2 120

- month sentence for wire fraud. The appeals from the denial of both motions are CONSOLIDATE D. In this court, Williams argues the district court erred in denying his Rule 36 motions. He asserts that, at sentencing, the district court erroneously denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because the court’s decision was based on inaccu rate information regarding Williams’s conduct while incarcerated. Specifically, Williams contends that paragraph 71 of the PSR Addendum incorrectly stated that he had two incident reports for lying or falsifying a statement when he had only one such incid ent. Additionally, the PSR Addendum stated he saw the Disciplinary Hearing Officer when he actually saw the Unit Disciplinary Committee. He also challenges statements in the same paragraph regarding pending disciplinary proceedings for other incidents.
I n cases where there are no factual disputes, we review a district court’s deni al of a Rule 36 motion de novo

. United States v. Mackay , 757 F.3d 195, 197 (5th Cir. 2014). T he relief Williams seeks is not just the correction of the record but resentencing based on a completely recalculated G uidelines range. This is not the type of error that is correctable under Rule 36. See F ED . R. C RIM . P.
36 ; Mackay , 757 F.3d at 200; see also United States v. Buendia

- Rangel , 553 F.3d 378, 379 ( 5th Cir. 2008 ). Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. Williams’s motion for judicial notice and supplemental motion for judicial notice are DENIED. Case: 15-11259 Document: 00513727026 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00364-CR

Ex parte Mohammad Mahmood

FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 21-0586-K368, THE HONORABLE DANIEL H. MILLS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Mohammad Mahmood has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The 

motion is signed by both appellant and his attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: February 17, 2022

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32



JOINT CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL

FINANCIAL OFFICER REQUIRED BY EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(B)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Protocall Technologies Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarters ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Bruce Newman, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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.



November 19, 2007



/s/ Bruce Newman

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

Bruce Newman

CEO, Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer
#### Patricia Fogelman et al., Appellants, v Spring Swings, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[719 NYS2d 662]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated September 10, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Spring Swings, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Patricia Fogelman was injured in a fall from an outdoor recreational device manufactured by the defendant Spring Swings, Inc. (hereinafter Spring), which had been negligently installed by the defendant Gold Coast Tennis, Inc. (hereinafter Gold Coast). Spring moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending that Gold Coast’s deviation from Spring’s installation instructions absolved Spring of liability. The plaintiff asserted that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Spring’s installation instructions were inadequate, and thus contributed to the foreseeability of possible injury.

A manufacturer of a reasonably safe product cannot be held liable for injuries proximately caused by substantial alterations or modifications of the product by a third party which renders the product defective or otherwise unsafe *(see, Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp.,*77 NY2d 525). In the present case, it is uncontroverted that the eyebolts used by Gold Coast’s employ*505ees in assembling the recreational device were not those supplied by Spring or recommended in the product’s instructions. Because the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury was the failure of those eyebolts, the Supreme Court properly granted Spring’s motion *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320; *Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., supra).*S. Miller, J. P., Gold-stein, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
----

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

|                                      |                                             |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
| June      24 , 2009                       |                                             |   |
|                                      |                                             |   |   |
| ADVANCED      MEDICAL ISOTOPE CORPORATION |                                             |   |   |   |
|                                      |                                             |   |   |   |   |
| By:                                       | /s/ James      C. Katzaroff                 |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | Name:      James C. Katzaroff                    |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | Title:      Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |   |   |   |   |

|   |                                |   |   |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| By:    | /s/ L.      Bruce Jolliff      |   |   |   |   |
|   | Name:      L. Bruce Jolliff         |   |   |   |   |
|   | Title:      Chief Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |

----
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Patrick Ward, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sinewire Networks Inc. hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sinewire Networks Inc. for the interim period ended September 30, 2004 (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 Sinewire Networks Inc.

Dated:  November 19, 2004

/s/ Patrick Ward	Patrick Ward
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 19-7129 September Term, 2022

 FILED ON: DECEMBER 19, 2022

RINAT AKHMETSHIN,

APPELLANT

v.

WILLIAM BROWDER,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:18-cv-01638)

Before: KATSAS, Circuit Judge; EDWARDS AND TATEL, Senior Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This cause came to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. An opinion and judgment issued on

December 29, 2020, Akhmetshin v. Browder, 983 F.3d 542 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Appellee filed a

petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on January 12, 2021. Upon consideration of the

petition for panel rehearing, and the response thereto, the court certified questions of law to the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Akhmetshin v. Browder, 993 F.3d 922 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 

The D.C. Court of Appeals issued an opinion on the certified questions of law, Akhmetshin v.

Browder, 275 A.3d 290 (D.C. 2022), and the parties filed supplemental briefs. On consideration

thereof, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the opinion filed December 29, 2020, Akhmetshin v.

Browder, 983 F.3d 542 (D.C. Cir. 2020), be vacated; the judgment filed December 29, 2020, be

vacated; the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this cause, Akhmetshin v. Browder,

407 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2019), be vacated; and the case be remanded to the District Court for

further consideration of the entire case in light of the D.C. Court of Appeals’ decision in

Akhmetshin v. Browder, 275 A.3d 290 (D.C. 2022). On remand, the District Court should

consider Browder’s federal constitutional objections to personal jurisdiction in the first instance

before determining whether there is any need for jurisdictional discovery. Once these
determinations have been made, the District Court should then resolve any remaining issues on

the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing be denied.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is

directed to withhold the issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the resolution of

any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule

41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

2
exv10w8





Exhibit 10.8





AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE

TESORO CORPORATION

AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE SECURITY PLAN




     Pursuant to the authority of the undersigned, and the provisions of Section 7.1 thereof,
the Tesoro Corporation Amended and Restated Executive Security Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended
in the following respects only, effective as of January 1, 2010, except as otherwise stated herein:



     Section IV, subsection 4.1, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



     “4.1 Benefits payable in accordance with Section III will be calculated as of the first day of
the month next following the month of the Participant’s Retirement and shall commence, or in the
case of a lump sum payment, be distributed in full on the first day of the seventh (7th)
calendar month beginning after the Participant’s Retirement Date. Benefits payable in the form
of an annuity will continue to be paid on the first day of each succeeding month. The last such
payment will be on the first day of the month in which the retired Participant dies unless another
annuity form of payment that contemplates payments made subsequent to the Participant’s death, is
elected in accordance with Section 3.2. The first payment will include all amounts that would
otherwise have been paid during the period commencing on the first day of the month next following
the month of the Participant’s Retirement and ending on such payment date, plus interest on such
amounts for such period, which interest shall be calculated using the Lump Sum Interest Rate in
effect on the date of the Participant’s Retirement.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as conclusive evidence of the adoption of the foregoing
instrument comprising Amendment No. 1 to the Tesoro Corporation Amended and Restated
Executive Security Plan, the undersigned has caused these presents to be duly executed in the
name and on behalf of Tesoro Corporation this 24th day of February, 2010.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	TESORO CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Susan A. Lerette
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	SVP, Administration
	 

	 	 	 	 







1
In the INTEREST OF F.E.S., Appellant, v. Juvenile OFFICER, Respondent.

WD 81523

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: February 26, 2019

Craig A. Johnston, Columbia, for appellant.

Lori A. Fluegel and Elizabeth E. Walker, Kansas City for respondent.

Before Division Two: Alok Ahuja, P.J., and Thomas H. Newton and Mark D. Pfeiffer, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, F.E.S. (a juvenile) was found to have committed acts which would have constituted the offense of unlawful use of a weapon if committed by an adult. The allegations stemmed from an incident in which a gun was found in a backpack belonging to F.E.S., at the middle school that he attended. The circuit court ordered that F.E.S. be committed to the custody of Family Court Services, but it suspended the execution of that commitment and placed F.E.S. on supervised probation in his mother's custody. F.E.S. appeals. He argues that there was insufficient evidence that he brought the gun into the school, as required by § 571.030.1(10), RSMo. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no *547precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b)
----

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 3 June 2005

at the request of the Council of the European Union on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (COM(2005) 155 final)

(CON/2005/17)

(2005/C 144/10)

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 3 June 2005.

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET

----

(1)OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 6.

----
Exhibit 4(g)


 


PROTECTIVE LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY
 •  {P. O. BOX 10648  •  BIRMINGHAM, 
ALABAMA  35202-0648}


 


BENEFIT BASED FEE ENDORSEMENT


FOR


VARIABLE ANNUITY DEATH BENEFIT RIDERS


 


We are adding the following
provisions to the Variable Annuity Death Benefit Rider attached to your
Contract:


 


Benefit
Cost - The cost for the death benefit is equal, on an
annualized basis, to { 0.10% } of the average death benefit value on the Valuation Days
described in the next paragraph.


 


Monthly
Fee - Once each month while the Variable Annuity Death
Benefit Rider is in force, we will calculate the fee for the death benefit and
deduct that amount from the Contract Value. The monthly fee is calculated as of
the end of the Valuation Period that includes the same day of the month as the
Effective Date, or the last Valuation Period of the month if that date does not
occur during the month for which the fee is being calculated. The fee is
deducted from the Contract Value as of the next Valuation Period.


 


Calculating
the Monthly Fee - We calculate the monthly fee using
the formula below:


 


Monthly Fee  =  [ 1 – ( 1 – {
0.10% } )1/12] x  DBV , where


 


DBV  =  is
the value of the death benefit as of the calculation date.


 


Deducting
the Monthly Fee - We will deduct the monthly fee as of
the Valuation Period immediately following the Valuation Period for which it
was calculated. The monthly fee will be deducted pro rata from the Allocation
Options in the same proportion that the value of the Allocation Option bears to
the total Contract Value.


 


Signed for the Company and made
a part of the Contract as of the Effective Date.


 


PROTECTIVE LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE
COMPANY


 


	
  

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
           {
  Secretary }
RICHARD ALLEN NEAL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4189

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 22, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

Richard Allen Neal, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
AFS-09-411-E 

Oct 1 2010 

Mr. James L. Jensen 

Vice President and Director of Operations 

Air Center Helicopters, Inc. 

150 Aviation Way, Hangar 17N 

Fort Worth, TX 76106 

Dear Mr. Jensen: 

This is in response to your letter dated July 7, 2009, petitioning the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Air Center Helicopters, Inc. (Air Center), for an 

exemption from § 135.145 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

After reviewing your request, the FAA finds the exemption process is not the appropriate 

method by which to obtain relief to this regulation. Section 135.145(g) states the 

Administrator may authorize deviations from this section if the Administrator finds that 

special circumstances make full compliance with this section unnecessary. Therefore, you 

should seek a deviation through your certificate holding district office. 

The FAA will take no further action on your petition and Docket No. FAA-2006-25223 is 

being closed. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I,
James A. Krantz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings,
Ltd.
 
 
 Date:  July
      24, 2008
              /s/  James
      A. KrantzBy:
      James A. KrantzExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
[No. 29131-2-II.

Division Two.

April 27, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Andra Marc Hagins, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 01-1-05013-5, Frederick W. Fleming, J., entered July 19, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, A.C.J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Houghton, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6547]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. [thinsp]225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board 
has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than April 7, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Anne MacEwen, Bank 
Applications Officer) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Canandaigua National Corporation, Canandaigua, New York; to 
acquire Canandaigua National Trust Company of Florida, Sarasota, 
Florida, and thereby engage in trust company activities pursuant to 
section 225.28(b)(5) of Regulation Y.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Marshall and Ilsley Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and M and 
I LLC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; proposes to acquire, indirectly through M 
and I Investment Management Corp., all of the assets, liabilities and 
business of the Delta Asset Management Division of Berkeley Capital 
Management LLC, San Francisco, California, and thereby engage in 
financial and advisory activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(6)(i) 
of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 20, 
2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-6547 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
July 6, 2015

Mr. Jonathan Van Drunen

Eagle Vision Productions, LLC

5168 Water Tower Road

Meridian, MS 39305

Dear Mr. Van Drunen:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 8, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0901), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure