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

___________________________

No. 21

- 1940

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Samuel D. Nelson

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

____________

Submitted: March 08 , 2022 Filed: March 11, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHER D, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Samuel D. Nelson appeals after he pled guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, and the district court 1 imposed an aggregate prison sentence to run consecutively to a state sentence for an offense that was not relevant conduct to this

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.-2- offense. See USSG § 5G1.3 . Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.

Nelson does not dispute that the district court had discretion to impose his
federal sentence consec utively to his undischarged state sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (“[I]f a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively.”). Rather, he as serts that the decision to run the sentence consecutively to his undischarged state sentences was substantively unreasonable because the district court gave insufficient weight to the fact that he would not receive federal credit for the time he spent in t emporary federal custody prior to being sentenced.

T he district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Nelson’s federal sentence to run consecutively to his undischarged state sentences. See United States
v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461

- 62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). The record reflects that the district court recognized its discretion to order the sentences to run concurrently, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and Nelson’s argument in favor of running his federal sentence concurrently, and exercised its discretion to order that the sentence run consecutively. See id. at 461

- 62 (abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); United States v. McDonald , 521 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has “wide discretion” to order sentence to be served consecutively to undischarged s entence); see also United States v. Hall , 825 F.3d 373, 376 (8th Cir. 2016) (no abuse of discretion where district court considered § 3553(a) factors and recognized its discretion to run sentences concurrently but declined to do so)

.

The judgment of the d istrict court is affirmed.

______________________________
Troy WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3022

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 27, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
SCWC-16-0000207

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

MARLENE TIM SING, individually and as Next Friend to her

daughter, Makalika Tim Sing, a minor, and as her Personal

Representative for the Estate of DALE KANANI TIM SING, Deceased;

DALE CORDERO, KALE TIM SING, and LOKELANI TIM SING,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

KONRAD K. MOSSMAN, HUIHUI LAVON KANAHELE-MOSSMAN,

Respondents/Defendants/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/Cross-Claim

Defendants/Appellees,

and

COUNTY OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Defendant/Cross-Claim

Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Appellee,

(3CC051000297) 

____________________

KASSY ASTRANDE, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of MCKENZIE

TIM SING, a minor, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs.

KONRAD K. MOSSMAN, HUIHUI LAVON KANAHELE-MOSSMAN,

Respondents/Defendants/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/

Cross-Claim Defendants/Appellees,

and

COUNTY OF HAWAI#I

Respondent/Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant/

Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Appellee.

(3CC051000413)

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-15-0000891 and CAAP-16-0000207)

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-16-0000207

21-OCT-2019

11:08 AM
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioners Marlene Tim Sing, Dale Cordero, Kale Tim Sing,

and Lokelani Tim Sing’s application for writ of certiorari filed on

August 28, 2019, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 21, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 654 

Relating to the application of Article II, section 3, clause 5, of the 

Constitution of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 7, 2014 

Mr. ISSA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Relating to the application of Article II, section 3, clause 

5, of the Constitution of the United States. 

1 Resolved, That the Secretary of Health and Human 

2 Services has failed to meet the requirement of Article II, 

3 section 3, clause 5, of the Constitution of the United 

4 States to take care that a law be faithfully executed, with 

5 respect to the policy of the Department of Health and 

6 Human Services providing for the authorization, approval, 

7 renewal, modification, or extension of any experimental, 

8 pilot, or demonstration project under section 1115 of the 

9 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) that waives compliVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:02 Jul 07, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR654.IH HR654

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 654 IH 

1 ance with a requirement of section 407 of such Act (42 

2 U.S.C. 607) through a waiver of section 402 of such Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 602); and that the House of Representatives 

4 shall bring a civil action in the United States District 

5 Court for the District of Columbia for declaratory or in6 junctive relief to challenge the policy of the Secretary of 

7 Health and Human Services. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2022119EN.01000601.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-90/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Scope - Taxable transactions - Activities carried out by a company incorporated under private law - Operation of car parks on private land - Control fees levied by that company in the event of failure by the motorists to comply with the general terms and conditions for use of those car parks - Characterisation - Economic and commercial realities of the transactions)

(2022/C 119/08)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the control fees levied by a company incorporated under private law, tasked with the operation of private car parks, in the event of failure by the motorists to comply with the general terms and conditions for use of those car parks must be regarded as consideration for a supply of services within the meaning of that provision and, as such, subject to value added tax (VAT).

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 105620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30875]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Short Courses.
    Date: February 7, 2025.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institute on Aging, 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 
8B, Rockville, MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institute of Aging, National Institute of Health, 
5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 8B, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-402-7702, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 19, 2024.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-30875 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avaya Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony J. Massetti, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
my knowledge, 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.



|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    ANTHONY J. MASSETTI                                                                         
|Anthony J. Massetti Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

May 12, 2011
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

___________________________

No. 12-15135

Non-Argument Calendar

___________________________

Agency No. A088-741-397

MING ZHENG,

Petitioner,

versus

US ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_______________________________

(July 12, 2013)

Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 12-15135 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

PER CURIAM:

Ming Zheng seeks review of the BIA’s final order affirming the IJ’s denial 

of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

Briefly stated, the petition presents these issues:

1. Whether substantial evidence supports the denial of Zheng’s 

application for asylum based upon an adverse-credibility determination.

2. Whether substantial evidence supports the BIA’s alternative 

finding that Zheng failed to demonstrate either past persecution or a 

well-founded fear of future persecution.

“Substantial evidence” review must be a highly deferential one. See Forgue 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). The BIA’s 

adverse-credibility determination was supported by “specific, cogent reasons” --

including Zheng’s swearing to two different dates of entry into the United States --

and was supported by substantial evidence. 

Under the law, “persecution” is an extreme concept and “fear” has an 

objectionably reasonable element. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 

1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005); Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1353 

(11th Cir. 2009); Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1289 (11th Cir. 2001). 

Even if Zheng had been credible, the BIA also found that Zheng did not meet his 

Case: 12-15135 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

burden of showing either past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on 

account of his political opinion. This finding was supported by substantial 

evidence: the level of mistreatment was not sufficiently extreme and the record 

does not compel the conclusion that the Chinese government was aware of Zheng’s 

low-level political activity or that it would actually target him as a result of the 

activity. Because Zheng failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he has 

necessarily failed to meet the higher standards for withholding of removal or for 

CAT relief. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n.4. 

The BIA’s discussion was announced adequately. The BIA is not required 

to address specifically each piece of evidence. See Carrizo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 652 

F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011).

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 12-15135 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 3
* 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 May 2, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11470 Summary Calendar

ELBERT M. MADERA, also known as Jack Madera; SUE MADERA Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus CORPORATE SOLUTIONS, INC. Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (USDC No. 3:03-cv-1305)

_________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* 1 Reviewing the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee de novo, we affirm for the following reasons:1. “ERISA does not preempt state law claims when the claims ‘affect only [an

employee’s] employer/employee relationship with [an employer] and not her administrator/beneficiary relationship with the company.” Rokohl v. Texaco, Inc ., 77 F.3d 126, 129 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing cases) (emphasis in original). The distinction appellants seek to draw between 1) the unpaid ERISA benefits and 2) medical expenses which arose after the discovery of the alleged negligent procurement does not help appellant. Some, if not all, of the damages arising under the former are necessarily encompassed by the latter. The district court properly concluded that the negligence claim was conflict preempted under ERISA § 514. 2. ERISA § 502 (a)(2) allows a beneficiary to sue for breach of fiduciary duty. ERISA also requires fiduciaries to discharge their duties “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries[,]” using “care, skill, prudence, and diligence.” 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1). The appellants’ negligent procurement of the failed insurer allegation is covered by this language. 3. For the reasons stated by the district court, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the appellee. Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - (-)documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - (-)news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

## By Year

newsletter        November 30, 2014      Earth Science Matters - Volume 1, Fall 2014

Technical Memos        April 5, 1996        TM96-05 Collection, processing, and analysis of carbon isotope samples
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 4959** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. LAMARR PATE MURPHY, a/k/a Bandana Red , D efendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00301

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : November 4, 2013 Decided: December 3, 2013

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorne y, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lamarr Pate Murphy pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm after sustain ing a prior conviction for an offense punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Murphy to 120 months of imprisonment, with twenty

- four months to run concurrently with any s entence Murphy would receive for pending related state charges. Murphy now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. Murphy argues on appeal that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not impose a sentence entirely concu rrent to the anticipated state sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton , 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). A district co urt has the discretion to impose a federal sentence concurrent with , consecutive to, or partially concurrent with any anticipated state sentence. See Sester v. United States , 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1468

- 69 (2012). In deciding whether to run a sentence concurre ntly or consecutively to another sentence, the court must consider the factors in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b). Here, t he district court recognized its authority to sentence Murphy either consecutively to , concurrently , or3 partially concur rently with the anticipated state sentence, thoroughly considered and discussed the parties’ arguments and the § 3553(a) factors, and exhaustively explained the chosen
sentence. Based on the factors discussed by the district court, we conclude that the co urt’s within

- Guidelines sentence imposed partially concurrent with the not

- yet

- imposed state sentence is substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal cont entions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 49 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Chinese Communist Party’s 

espionage mission to send a surveillance balloon across the United States, 

in violation of international law, is unacceptable and should be condemned. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. HAWLEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Chinese Communist Party’s espionage mission to send a surveillance 

balloon across the United States, in violation of international law, is unacceptable and should be condemned. 

Whereas, on January 28, 2023, the Chinese Communist 

Party flew a balloon aircraft into United States airspace 

in Alaska to conduct surveillance; 

Whereas, on January 31, 2023, the Chinese surveillance balloon reentered United States airspace over Idaho; 

Whereas, on February 1, 2023, the Chinese surveillance balloon was seen over Montana; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 49 IS 

Whereas, on February 2, 2023, the Department of Defense 

confirmed its detection and tracking of the Chinese 

‘‘high-altitude surveillance balloon’’; 

Whereas, on February 3, 2023, the Chinese surveillance balloon was seen over Missouri; and 

Whereas, at 2:39 p.m. on February 4, 2023, the United 

States military shot down the Chinese surveillance balloon using a single AIM–9X air-to-air missile fired from 

a F–22 Raptor off the coast of Surfside Beach, South 

Carolina: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) condemns the Chinese Communist Party’s 

3 invasion of United States airspace to conduct sur4 veillance; 

5 (2) affirms that it is the policy of the United 

6 States to protect the sovereignty and integrity of 

7 United States airspace from foreign and hostile state 

8 actors, especially the People’s Republic of China; 

9 and 

10 (3) calls on the President to be transparent 

11 with the American people and Congress regarding 

12 this latest spying incident and all other attempts by 

13 the Chinese Communist Party to conduct surveil14 lance on United States citizens, territory, and assets. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Sharon FULTON, Petitioner, v. STUDENT TRANSPORTATION OF AMERICA/NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE CO., Respondents.

No. 1D17-4731

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018 Rehearing Denied July 30, 2018

James R. Parris of Parris & Papa, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

Thomas G. Portuallo of Eraclides, Gelman, Hall, Indek, Goodman, Waters & Traverso, Jacksonville, for Respondents.

Per Curiam.

DENIED.

Makar, Winokur, and Winsor, JJ., concur.