alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED 

# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4827



# 

A LLEN J ETT , Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

 U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4828



#  A NTOINE D E P AUL M ARSHALL , a/k/a Chim Chim, a/k/a Antone Depaul Marshall, Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge.

(CR-96-458-WMN) Submitted: June 25, 2003 Decided: July 31, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.COUNSEL Anthony D. Martin, SOLOMON & MARTIN, Greenbelt, Maryland; Thomas T. Ruffin, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Allen Jett and Antoine DePaul Marshall filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc from the decision of this Court on May 20, 2003, affirming the sentences imposed by the district court. See United States v. Jett , No. 02-4827(L) (4th Cir. May 20, 2003). In the petition for rehearing, Marshall asserts that we erred in applying a plain error standard of review to his claim that the district court erred by imposing a five-year term of supervised release when itresentenced him because no more than a three-year term was authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3). Upon a review of the record, we find that Marshall is correct as to his argument with respect to plain error, for he did raise this issue at resentencing and on appeal, and we should have applied a de novo standard of review. See United States v. Daughtrey , 874 F.2d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 1989). We therefore rehear the case and issue this opinion. Upon de novo review on rehearing, we nevertheless affirm the holding of the district court based on our holding in United States v. Pratt , 239 F.3d 640, 647 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding that the statutory cap in § 3583 "does not apply to statutes, such as § 841(b)(1)(C), whose own mandatory minimum periods of supervised release are the same as, or exceed, the maximum periods provided by § 3583"). Marshall suggests that we overrule Pratt ; however, a panel of this court 2 U NITED S TATES v. J ETTcannot overrule a prior panel. Mentavlos v. Anderson , 249 F.3d 301, 312 n.4 (4th Cir. 2001). With respect to the other issues raised in the petition for rehearing, we are of opinion these claims are meritless. We therefore affirm thesentences imposed by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. There has been no request for a poll of the Court on the petition for rehearing en banc; therefore, the petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. J ETT
EXHIBIT 32


                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 report of Ridgewood Energy M Fund, LLC (the "Fund") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned
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 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 Fund.



Date: May 15, 2006        By:  /s/ Robert E. Swanson
                               ---------------------
                               Robert E. Swanson
                               President and Chief Executive Officer
                               (principal executive officer)


Date: May 15, 2006        By:  /s/ Kathleen P. McSherry
                               ------------------------
                               Kathleen P. McSherry
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                               (principal financial and accounting officer)


A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
Ridgewood Energy M Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy M Fund,
LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report or as a
separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 263 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 263

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States 
                               v. Taylor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 8, 2021

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States 
                               v. Taylor.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Taylor, Cr. No. 21-6, pending in the 
        United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, the 
        prosecution has requested the production of testimony and, if necessary, 
        documents from Nicole Meservey, an employee of the office of Senator 
        Mark Warner;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former employees of the 
        Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or 
        documents relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Nicole Meservey, an employee of the office of 
Senator Mark Warner, and any other current or former employee of the 
Senator's office from whom relevant evidence may be necessary, are 
authorized to testify and produce documents in the case of United 
States v. Taylor, except concerning matters for which a privilege 
should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senator Warner and any current or former employees of his office in 
connection with the production of evidence authorized in section one of 
this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017369EN.01000202.xml

| 30.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/2

---

Appeal brought on 26 April 2017 by Natural Instinct Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 February 2017 in Case T-30/16: M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct

(Case C-218/17 P)

(2017/C 369/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Natural Instinct Ltd (represented by: C. Spintig, Rechtsanwalt, S. Pietzcker, Rechtsanwalt, B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, M. I. Industries, Inc.

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 7 September 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 854 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.854

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two

                                 An Act

 
   To designate methamphetamine as an emerging threat, and for other 
                                purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Methamphetamine Response Act of 
2021''.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF EMERGING THREAT.
    (a) In General.--Congress declares methamphetamine an emerging drug 
threat, as defined in section 702 of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1701), in the 
United States.
    (b) Required Emerging Threat Response Plan.--Not later than 90 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy shall establish and implement an Emerging 
Threat Response Plan that is specific to methamphetamine in accordance 
with section 709(d) of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1708(d)).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW   Document 28   Filed 07/17/17   Page 1 of 1
##### 



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 Beverly
Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/ A
for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, William R. Floyd, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| |    |                                                                                                                                                            
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 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
    result of operations of the Company.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ WILLIAM R. FLOYD   
| |                        
| | William R. Floyd       
| | Chief Executive Officer

June 14, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any
filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41114 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FELIPE MILLAN-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-180-1

-------------------- April 19, 2002 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felipe Millan-Flores has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Millan has filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Millan’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED.
Sarah WALKER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-2945

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 8, 2019

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DENIED .

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
1

Under Rule 9(b), the court must comply with the requirements of Rule 9(a). Rule 9(a)(1)

provides, in pertinent part, that the court must state in writing the reasons for an order regarding the

detention of a defendant in a criminal case. 

2

The other elements of § 3143(b) are not pertinent. Downs does not pose a danger to the

community, is not prosecuting this appeal for purposes of delay, and does not present a risk of flight.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Criminal No. 3:06-CR-034-D

VS. §

 §

JOHN WENTZELL DOWNS, §

 §

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 AND ORDER 

Defendant John Wentzell Downs (“Downs”) moves the court pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3143(b) for release pending appeal. For the reasons that follow, see Fed. R. App. P. 9(a)(1) and

(b),1 the court denies the motion.

Section 3143(b) provides that a defendant who has been found guilty of an offense and

sentenced to a term of imprisonment shall be detained unless the judicial officer finds, inter alia,

that the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact.2 A substantial question of law or fact is

one that is nonfrivolous and novel, raising substantial doubt as to the outcome of its resolution, with

the defendant required to show that a contrary appellate ruling would more probably than not result

in reversal, an order for a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a

reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the
- 2 -

expected duration of the appeal process. See § 3143(b)(1)(B)(i)-(iv); United States v. ValeraElizondo, 761 F.2d 1020, 1022-25 (5th Cir. 1985).

To obtain release pending appeal, Downs argues, in relevant part, that he will raise one point

of error on appeal: that the evidence was insufficient to support proof of the essential element of

“affect on interstate commerce.” In a July 25, 2007 order, the court denied Downs’s motions for

judgment of acquittal and for new trial, concluding that “[v]iewed favorably to the government, the

evidence supports the verdict, including the essential element of 18 U.S.C. § 38(a)(1)(C) that

defendant’s conduct was in or affected interstate commerce.” Order at 2. The court adheres to this

conclusion in the context of Downs’s present motion for release pending appeal, and it also holds

that Downs has not demonstrated a substantial question of law or fact under the standard explained

in Valera-Elizondo. 

* * *

Downs’s November 2, 2007 motion for release pending appeal is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

November 8, 2007.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jason TUCKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3368

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 23, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Randy L. ROUNDTREE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2368

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 10, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Walter E. PALMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3447

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
K.J.S. v. STATE

CR-16-1177

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Optionable, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,  Matthew Katzeff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








November 12, 2010/s/Matthew Katzeff(Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,450
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,450
<PP&E>                                      50,149
<DEPRECIATION>                              (9,288)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,388
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    27,507
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,584)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,311
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                        2,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,799)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,799)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,799)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .001


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from CarrAmerica
Realty LP and subsidiaries consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1998
and from CarrAmerica Realty LP and subsidiaries and consolidated statement of
operations for the year ended December 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,504
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         672,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 779,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        328,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     426,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   779,615
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,614
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,869
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,869
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,869
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Notes & accounts receivable are presented net of allowance for doubtful
accounts as the allowance is immaterial.
</FN>


</TABLE>