alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN RE: Randy GRAY and PPC Transportation Company, Relators

NO. 12-19-00156-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler.

Opinion delivered May 31, 2019

Clayton H. Haley, Nacogdoches, D. Jeffrey Rambin, for Relator Randy Gray.

J. Michael Love, Lufkin, Clayton H. Haley, Nacogdoches, D. Jeffrey Rambin, for Relator PPC Transportation Company.

J. Michael Love, Lufkin, Sam Johnson II, Austin, Dakoda Fandry, for Real party in interest Shad Wells.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

***MEMORANDUM OPINION***

PER CURIAM

Relators, Randy Gray and PPC Transportation Company, filed this original proceeding to challenge Respondent's order compelling discovery responses to Requests for Production 89 and 96 and Interrogatories 3 and 15.1 Shad Wells is the Real Party in Interest. On May 15, 2019, Relators filed a Rule 11 agreement with this Court, which reflects that the parties resolved the discovery issues *213raised in this proceeding. On May 22, Wells filed a response, which indicates that the parties resolved their dispute and Respondent signed an order effectuating their agreement. Respondent's order demonstrates that Relator's complaints regarding Requests for Production 89 and 96 and Interrogatories 3 and 15 have been resolved. On May 24, Relators filed a motion to dismiss this proceeding as moot.

If a controversy no longer exists between the parties, the case becomes moot. *Reule v. RLZ Inv.* , 411 S.W.3d 31, 32 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). When a judgment "cannot have a practical effect on an existing controversy, the case is moot and any opinion issued on the merits in the appeal would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion." *Id.* An opinion is advisory when it neither constitutes specific relief to a litigant nor affects legal relations. *See**Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co. v. Thomas* , 196 S.W.3d 396, 401 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Accordingly, because the parties resolved the dispute presented in this original proceeding, we ***grant*** Relators' motion to dismiss and ***dismiss*** the petition for writ of mandamus as ***moot*** . *See**In re Hite* , No. 12-18-00121-CV, 2018 WL 2715300, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler June 6, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); *see also* TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a).

1

Respondent is the Honorable Robert K. Inselmann, Jr., Judge of the 217th District Court in Angelina County, Texas.
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2015-3940

Docket Number

2015-SW-065-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 76-67-57, Basic Issue, dated September 10, 

2015.

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321

Fort Worth, Texas 76177

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
Leonardo D. SIMPKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1007

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas, President and Chief Executive Officer of Triple-S Management Corporation(the Corporation), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the period ended September 30, 2007(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and; 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.        Date:      November 14, 2007 By:  /s/ Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas    Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas    *President andChief Executive Officer*   
39
Cameron Niakan 

Attomey ('Or Respondent 

10101 Grosvenor Pl. #620 

Rockville, MD 20852 

TEL:(202)276-4 726 

January 24, 2013 

BY MAIL 

Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chiej'Adminisr!'ative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200New Jersey Ave., S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: In the Matter of Trans Time Express FI)MS NO. FAA-2012-1260 

Dear Judge Yoder: 

Enclosed tor tiling please t1nd Trans Time Express' Consent Motion for Extension of 

Time to File an Answer to FAA's Complaint. Thank You. 

Very truly yours, 

Cameron Niakan 

Enclosures 

Cc: Charles Raley, Esq. 
FILED: JANUARY 24,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TR:\NSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHJNGTON. D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TRANS TIME EXPRESS 

FAA DOCKET NO. l TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Pe-nalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-1260 

TH,ANS TlME EXPRESS' CONSENT MOTION FOR EXTENT! ON OF TIME TO FILE 

ANSWER 

Respondent Trans Time Express (''Trans"). through counsel. hereby moves for an 

extension ofti111e, until February lOti', 2013, to t1le an Answer to FA.I\'~ Complaint. FAA 

consents to this request. 

Respondent's response to the Complaint was due 30 days a!'ter service of th~ Complaim. 

For unknown reasons, Respondent never received the Adminish·ative Judge's Order of December 

21 ", 2012 through the mail. It was only through FAA's counsel's e-mail, regarding deadlines, 

that Respondent became aware of the Order, and deadlines therein. 

Accordingly, Trans respectfully requesb an extension of time, until February 10"'. 2013 to 

tile an Answer to FAA's Con,plaint. Counsel for Trans conferred with counsel fi:>r FAA on 
January 22, 2013 and F,".A consent~ lo the relief requested hereil'L 

A proposed Order is attached. 

Dated: January 24, 2013 

Respectfully stLbmitted, 

a=c~- Cameron Nial1an 

Law Oftlce of Cameron Niakan 

10101 Grosvenor Pl. #620 

Rockville, MD 20852 

TEL (202)276·4726 

FAX: (877)287-6117 

EMAIL: cnliilNiakanJaw.com 

Attorney for Trans Time 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICR 

1 herehy ce1·tif)' that on this 24'" day of January, 20 13, l caused to be served by lJ. S. mail 

the liJregoing Trans Time Express' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to file an Answer 

LipOn: 

Charles Raley, Complainant's Counsel 

Sabrina Jawed, Complainant's Counsel 

Fn!'(Jrcement Division. AGC-300 

Office of' the ChiefCounsel, FAA 

ROO Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 
' (' '"' ,-

zan JAN 2w P 1: 21 

Fax Cover Sheet 

FedEx Kin<o'sts now Fed Ex Office 

Date \ ) :J S / J. () \ ?:> Number of pages .(_ !including cover page) 

To: From; 

2J,, clif J.,J,;, 

Company----------

Name b c;, \\.~ < c \,e_ 

Company 

Telephone---------

Comments---------------------

llllllllll!llllllllllllll~l~ 7 90363 00711 1 · 71111!1 !I!I~!~I~~IJ1 1l!llt 71111!1 Jl!l~!lii~~IJ I! ~1!113 Fax- Local Send Fax - Domostic Send Fax· International Send 

fedex.com 1.BOO.GoF$dEx 1.aoo 463.3339
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-13367 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:07-cr-00015-LJA-CHW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDDIE MAE CLEMONS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(February 23, 2017)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-13367 Date Filed: 02/23/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

John Philip Fox, appointed counsel for Eddie Clemons, has moved to 

withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Our independent 

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of 

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals 

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and 

Clemons’s revocation and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-13367 Date Filed: 02/23/2017 Page: 2 of 2
Nathan CURRY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-1122

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 11, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit No. 11  Statement re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  At December 31,

                                                            1995       1994        1993
                                                            ----       ----        ----



<S>                                                      <C>        <C>        <C>       
Net income.............................................. $4,343,404 $4,455,455 $4,214,648

Weighted average common shares outstanding..............  2,504,322  2,575,938  2,579,518

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect of 
  stock options.........................................     60,844     74,696     79,928

Total weighted average common shares and 
  equivalents outstanding...............................  2,565,166  2,650,634  2,659,446

Primary earnings per share.............................. $     1.69 $     1.68 $     1.58

Total weighted average common shares and equivalents 
  outstanding                                             2,565,166  2,650,634  2,659,446

Additional dilutive shares using the higher of the 
  end of period market value or average market value 
  for the period when utilizing the treasury stock
  method regarding stock options........................      4,578        250      2,128

Total outstanding shares for fully diluted earnings 
  per share computation                                   2,569,774  2,650,884  2,661,574

Fully diluted earnings per share........................ $     1.69 $     1.68 $     1.58

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 28, 2009 

s0420 

Order 

 

April 28, 2009 

137128 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137128 

 COA: 282928 

Oakland CC: 93-122863-FC 

KEVIN A. JACKSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 22, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 58 (Friday, March 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 13429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6873]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-615-038; ER08-1113-000]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice 
Regarding Answer Period

March 23, 2009.
    On March 18, 2009, Modesto Irrigation District, Transmission Agency 
of Northern California, City of Redding, California, Sacramento 
Municipal Utility District, and the Turlock Irrigation District 
(Affected IBAA Entities) filed an Emergency Motion for Clarification 
and Requested for Shortened Response Time in the above-referenced 
proceeding. In their filing, the Affected IBAA Entities request a 
shortening of the date for filing a response to the motion, given the 
urgency of the clarification request. By this notice, the date for 
filing answers to the Affected IBAA Entities' motion for clarification 
shall be March 24, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6873 Filed 3-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE
[No. 52815-7-I.

Division One.

June 1, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jeffery Walksontop, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 03-1-00668-1, George N. Bowden, J., entered July 10, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 3, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 27,                           ( print page 406)                        2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 58 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-91, CP2018-133.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-28353 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3080

_____________________________

SEGWAYNE GOLDSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

October 31, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel is denied on the merits.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Robert David Malove of the Law Office of Robert David Malove, 

P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Exhibit 10.2 





PREMIERE GLOBAL
SERVICES, INC.                                            
     FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                                  
   AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 





        This
First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the “First
Amendment”) is made and entered into by and between PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.,
a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), and THEODORE P. SCHRAFFT (the “Employee”),
dated as of December 21, 2007.  





BACKGROUND STATEMENT: 





        WHEREAS,
the Company and the Employee entered into that certain Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement on September 15, 2006, to be effective as of July 20, 2006 (the “Original
Agreement”); and  





        WHEREAS,
the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company and the
Employee have determined that it is in their best interests to amend the Original
Agreement as set forth herein to include special provisions intended to ensure
compliance with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A relating to deferred compensation;  





        NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of and reliance upon the foregoing and other good
and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Company and the Employee hereby amend the Original Agreement as
follows:  





        1.
      Section  4.2(b) of the  Original  Agreement  is hereby  deleted in its  entirety
 and amended and restated as follows: 



	  	As
a condition to the payment of these severance amounts, the Employee will sign a release
and waiver of claims in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit A hereto (the “Release”).
 The Release must be signed and returned to the Company within the period of time
designated by the Company (not less than seven (7) and not more than sixty (60) days
following the Employee’s receipt of such Release), and any revocation period
required by law or applicable regulation with respect to the release and waiver of claims
contained in the Release must expire without the Employee’s revoking or causing it
to be revoked.  Subject to Section 8 hereof, the amounts in clauses (C) and (D) will be
payable in cash in a lump sum within seventy-five (75) days following the Termination
Date (the actual date during such period to be determined by the Company in its sole
discretion).  








         2.
      Except as otherwise  provided  herein,  the terms and conditions of the Original
 Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 



	 	
	 














        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment on the date hereof. 

	
       

    	
      PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC. 

    
	 	 	 
	
       

    	
      By: 

    	/s/ Boland T. Jones


      

      Boland T. Jones
                                                       

      Chief Executive Officer 

	 	 	 
	 	
      EMPLOYEE 

      
      /s/ Theodore P. Schrafft
      


      Theodore P. Schrafft







	 	
2
----

----

I Ανακοινώσεις

Επιτροπή

----

Δημοσίευση ουσιωδών στοιχείων αποφάσεων χορήγησης χρηματοδοτικής συνδρομής με βάση τις διατάξεις του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 1164/94 του Συμβουλίου για την ίδρυση του Ταμείου Συνοχής, όπως ο κανονισμός αυτός τροποποιήθηκε από τους κανονισμούς (ΕΚ) αριθ. 1264/1999 και (ΕΚ) αριθ. 1265/1999

(2005/C 128/01)

ΚΥΠΡΟΣ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

ΤΣΕΧΙΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

EΣΘΟΝΙΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

ΕΛΛΑΔΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

ΟΥΓΓΑΡΙΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

ΛΕΤΤΟΝΙΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

ΛΙΘΟΥΑΝΙΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

ΜΑΛΤΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

ΠΟΛΩΝΙΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

ΠΟΡΤΟΓΑΛΙΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

ΣΛΟΒΑΚΙΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

ΣΛΟΒΕΝΙΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: Περιβάλλον και Μεταφορές

ΙΣΠΑΝΙΑ — 2004

Τομέας παρέμβασης: μεταφορές

Τομέας παρέμβασης: περιβάλλον

----

(1)  Για αυτή την απόφαση τροποποίησης δεν υπήρξε αύξηση της επιχορήγησης του Ταμείου Συνοχής.

----
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of U. S. Natural Nutrients & Minerals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 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 30, 2010  /s/ Dennis Cullison Dennis Cullison Principal Accounting Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to U. S. NATURAL NUTRIENTS & MINERALS, INC. and will be retained by U. S. NATURAL NUTRIENTS & MINERALS, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Randy L. MATKINS v. STATE

CR-15-1159

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 14, 2016 Reh. denied December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

At the time of Browne’s plea, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C)

governed pleas where the parties “agree that a specific sentence is the appropriate

disposition of the case.” In 2002, Rule 11 was reorganized and “language similar to

that contained in the [applicable] version of Rule 11(e)(1)(C) is now found in Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).” United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839, 842-43 (8th Cir.

2009).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3847

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Theodore T. Browne, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 2009

Filed: February 11, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On April 21, 1997, Theodore T. Browne pled guilty to a cocaine base (“crack”)

offense. He was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment pursuant to the terms of a

plea agreement made under former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C),1

which the sentencing court accepted. On June 11, 2008, Browne filed a motion for
-2-

reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After holding a hearing on

the matter, the district court granted Browne’s motion and reduced his sentence to 168

months. The government appeals, arguing that the district court was without authority

to grant a § 3582(c)(2) reduction because Browne’s sentence was based on the terms

of a Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement, and therefore was not “based on a sentencing

range” as required for application of § 3582(c)(2).

“In United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2009), our court

held that when a sentence is based upon a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement,

courts are bound by the terms of the agreement and have no authority under §

3582(c)(2) to alter those terms because of the subsequently amended Guidelines for

the retroactive crack cocaine sentencing reduction.” United States v. Fonville, 327

Fed.App. 673, 674 (8th Cir. 2009). Scurlark is equally controlling in the context of

a binding plea made under 11(e)(1)(C), the predecessor to Rule 11(c)(1)(C).

Accordingly, the district court erred in granting Browne’s motion for a reduction in

sentence. The judgment of the district court is reversed. 

______________________________