alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Anthony MARRERO, Appellant.

No. 03-3753.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued May 7, 2004.

Decided May 25, 2004.

Stephen A. Brusch (Argued), Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, USVI, for Appellant.

Tracey Christopher (Argued), St. Clair Theodore, Office of the United States Attorney, Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI, for Appellee.

Before BARRY, AMBRO, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

BARRY, Circuit Judge.

By order entered August 22, 2003, the District Court revoked the term of supervised release appellant Anthony Marrero was then serving and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of twenty-four months. In this appeal, appellant argued that the District Court lacked power to revoke his term of supervised release because, at the time of revocation, that term had expired.1

Because we were unable to determine from the record and the briefs of the parties whether supervised release had expired and, if so, when, counsel were directed to provide at oral argument “the dates, if any, from February 5, 1999 to August 19, 2003 during which Marrero was incarcerated and whether such period or periods of incarceration, if any, were ‘in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State or local crime.’ *See*18 U.S.C. § 3624(e).”

At oral argument, appellant’s counsel advised the Court, and counsel for the United States did not dispute, that appellant had been incarcerated “in connection with a Federal, State or local offense” from May 12, 2001 to August 19, 2003, the date of the revocation hearing. It was, therefore, apparent that the three year term of supervised release which had been *848imposed on February 5, 1999 had not expired when that term was revoked because incarceration tolls a period of supervised release. The order of the District Court, entered on August 22, 2003, will, therefore, be affirmed.

1

. Appellant also argued that assuming his term of supervised release had expired, the delay caused by the government in holding his revocation hearing was not reasonably necessary.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

JEFFREY E. FAUCETTE (No. 193066)

SHANNON SCOTT (No. 233386)

HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY

FALK & RABKIN

A Professional Corporation

Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-4024

Telephone: 415/434-1600

Facsimile: 415/217-5910

KIRSTIN L. STOLL-DeBELL (pro hac vice)

MERCHANT & GOULD

1950 Independence Plaza

1050 Seventeenth Street

Denver, Colorado 80265

Telephone: 303/357-1670

Facsimile: 303/357-1671

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ALTIRA GROUP LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALTIRA GROUP LLC, a Colorado Limited

Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALTATERRA PARTNERS, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company; DFJ

ALTATERRA CLEAN ENERGY, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company; DFJ

ALTATERRA CLEAN ENERGY FUND,

LP, a California limited partnership; and DFJ

ALTATERRA PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware

limited partnership,

Defendants.

No. C 05 01847

Action filed: May 4, 2005

E-filing

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE

-RMW

*E-FILED - 8/4/05*

Case 5:05-cv-01847-RMW Document 9 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS that Plaintiff Altira Group, LLC has advised the Court

of a settlement in this matter.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be dismissed with prejudice; provided,

however, that if Plaintiff shall certify to this Court, within ninety days, with proof of service

of a copy thereon on opposing counsel, that the agreed consideration for said settlement has

not been delivered over, the foregoing Order shall stand vacated, and this cause shall

forthwith be restored to the calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August__, 2005

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

4

/s/ Ronald M. Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01847-RMW Document 9 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2
1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 08-1788

________________ United States of America, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. Carlos Urquhart, Defendant – Appellant. * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. [UNPUBLISHED]

________________ Submitted: April 21, 2008 Filed: May 7, 2008

________________ Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

________________ PER CURIAM. Carlos Urquhart appeals from the district court's 1 denial of his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guid elines Manual (U.S.S.G.), which reduced certain base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) depending on the quantity of cocaine base (crack) involved.-2- Appellant is ineligible for any relief under the new retroactive amendments because his original sentence of 120 months was imposed pursuant to the mandatory minimum provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841. See United States v. Jones , No. 08-1692 (8th Cir. Apr. 25, 2008) (per curiam). Accordingl y, we summarily affirm the district court and deny the motion for appointment of counsel.

______________________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-1947

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ENTREPRENEURS OF

AMERICAN BENEFIT TRUST, a Wisconsin non-profit

trust; ROSS N. FULLER, Trustee of International Association of Entrepreneurs of America

Benefit Trust,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

STEVEN T. FOSTER, Commissioner of Insurance,

State Corporation Commission of the Commonwealth of Virginia,

Defendant - Appellee.

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Amicus Curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-94-454-3)

Argued: February 1, 1996 Decided: April 12, 1996

Before HALL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BLAKE, United States

District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by

designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

ARGUED: David Frankman Peters, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Michael Don Thomas, Associate General Counsel,

Office of General Counsel, STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mark S. Dray, HUNTON & WILLIAMS,

Richmond, Virginia; B.H.B. Hubbard, III, HUBBARD, BREEDEN & TERRY,

Irvington, Virginia, for Appellants. Anthony Gambardella, General

Counsel, Peter B. Smith, Senior Counsel, Vishwa B. Bhargava, Office

of General Counsel, STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., Solicitor of Labor,

Marc I. Machiz, Associate Solicitor, Karen L. Handorf, Counsel for

Special Litigation, Paul C. Adair, Trial Attorney, Office of the

Solicitor, Plan Benefits Security Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

The International Association of Entrepreneurs of America

Benefit Trust and its Trustee, Ross N. Fuller, appeal the judgment

of the district court entered in favor of Steven T. Foster,

Virginia's Commissioner of Insurance, in the Trust's action for

declaratory and injunctive relief from the state Bureau of Insurance's attempt to regulate a Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangement,

see 29 U.S.C.A. § 1002(40)(A) (West Supp. 1996), operated by the

Trust. Upon considering the briefs and arguments of the parties,

along with the amicus brief submitted by the Secretary of Labor in

support of the judgment below, we affirm that judgment for the

reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion.

International Association of Entrepreneurs of America Benefit

Trust, et al. v. Foster, 883 F. Supp. 1050 (E.D. Va. 1995).

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 10.3**

 

**Tri-S Security Corporation**

**3700 Mansell Road**

**Suite 220**

**Alpharetta, GA 30022**

 

August 10, 2005

 

Mr. Ronald Farrell

3700 Mansell Road

Suite 220

Alpharetta, Georgia 30022

 

Dear Mr. Farrell:

 

This letter,when countersigned by you, will set forth the entire agreement between you andTri-S Security Corporation (the “Company”) regarding the subject matter hereof.

 

You and theCompany agree, acknowledge and understand that the Amendment No. 1 toEmployment Agreement between the Company and you dated February 4, 2005(the “Amendment”) is rescinded effective July 19, 2005 and that youremployment with the Company is governed by that certain Employment Agreementbetween the Company and you dated January 1, 2002 as if the Amendment werenever in effect (the “Rescission”).  TheCompany acknowledges that the Rescission was approved by the CompensationCommittee of the Board of Directors of the Company on July 19, 2005.

 

This letter may be executed by facsimile signature and in one or morecounterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of whichtogether shall constitute one and the same instrument.

 

If theforegoing accurately reflects our agreement, please execute this letter in thespace below and return a copy to the Company.

 

 
|                     | Very truly yours,              |                |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------|
|                     |                           |                |
| ** **               | **TRI-S SECURITY CORPORATION** | ** **          |
|                     |                           |                |
|                     | By:                            | /s/ Wayne Stallings |   |
|                     | Printed Name: Wayne Stallings  |                |
|                     | Title: Chief Financial Officer |                |
|                     |                           |                |
|                     |                           |                |
| **AGREED AND ACCEPTED:** | ** **                     | ** **          |
|                     |                           |                |
| /s/ Ronald G. Farrell    |                           |                |   |
| **RONALD G. FARRELL**    | ** **                     | ** **          |
|                          |                                |                     |  |  |

 

----
Timothy Lebaron MIXON v. STATE

CR-16-0900

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Exhibit 32.1

                               Certification

     The undersigned certifies for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as the chief
executive officer of Iron Star Development, Inc., ("Iron Star") that to his
knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Iron Star on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended June 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operation of Iron Star.


Date: August 15, 2005

By: /s/ Wallace Boyack
     Wallace Boyack
     Chief Executive Officer
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 368 

Designating September 25, 2021, through October 3, 2021, as ‘‘Blue Star 

Welcome Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 

Mr. KAINE (for himself and Mr. BURR) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating September 25, 2021, through October 3, 2021, 

as ‘‘Blue Star Welcome Week’’. 

Whereas Blue Star Families seeks to empower military families by connecting them with their neighbors, both individuals and organizations, to create vibrant communities 

of mutual support; 

Whereas Blue Star Families annually designates the week beginning the last Saturday in September and concluding 

9 days thereafter as ‘‘Blue Star Welcome Week’’; 

Whereas, during Blue Star Welcome Week, the Senate recognizes the 600,000 active duty and transitioning military 

families who move to new communities each year; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 368 ATS 

Whereas nearly half of these permanent change of station 

(PCS) moves occur during the summer; 

Whereas only 27 percent of military family respondents to 

the 2020 Military Family Lifestyle Survey published by 

Blue Star Families reported that they feel a sense of belonging to their local civilian community; and 

Whereas a sense of belonging is essential to the well-being 

and readiness of military families: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates September 25, 2021, through 

3 October 3, 2021, as ‘‘Blue Star Welcome Week’’; 

4 (2) expresses gratitude for the sacrifices made 

5 by service members, transitioning veterans, and their 

6 families; 

7 (3) commits to ensuring that military-connected 

8 families feel a strong sense of belonging to their 

9 local civilian communities; and 

10 (4) encourages civilians across the United 

11 States to welcome military-connected families into 

12 their communities. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1





Certification by Chief Executive Officer 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 Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ayden R. Lee, Jr., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and





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






/s/ Ayden R. Lee, Jr.Ayden R. Lee, Jr.Chairman, President andChief Executive OfficerMarch 31, 2010






This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
Leveraging Official Statistical Programs to 

Address Emerging Issues: 

Providing Information Relevant to the Coronavirus 

Pandemic

Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology 

Session Organizers: Jennifer Edgar and Jaki McCarthy 

Session Moderator: Jaki McCarthy
Session Motivation

• Federal Statistical Agencies have long standing survey programs and 

data collections 

• Many the result of years of planning, development and implementation 

• NO planning for a pandemic! 

• Federal agencies leveraged ongoing survey programs to provide timely 

relevant data to support policy evaluation and impact 

• Modifications to existing data collection 

• New information from existing collections 

• New uses for existing data
Today’s Session

Adding COVID-19 Questions to the CPS 

• Emy Sok and Karen Ksanovich (Bureau of Labor Statistics) & Tim Marshall (U.S. Census Bureau) 

Near Real-Time Surveillance of COVID-19 Mortality using Data from the National Vital Statistics 

System 

• Paul Sutton (Division of Vital Statistics, NCHS) and Lauren Rossen (Division of Research and Methodology,

NCHS) 

The IRS Office of Research, Applied Analytics and Statistics Use of Innovative Nimble Approaches 

to Support Decision Making and Evaluation Related to the Corona Virus Pandemic 

• Holly Donnelly (Internal Revenue Service) 

Expanding the Use of NCHS’ Research and Development Survey to Quantify Health 

Characteristics During the Coronavirus Pandemic 

• Paul Scanlon and Katherine Irimata (National Center for Health Statistics) 

New Data for New Purposes: The BTS Response to COVID-19 

• Rolf Schmitt, Deputy Director (Bureau of Transportation Statistics)

Discussant 

• Chris Marokov (Office of Management and Budget)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

STIPULATION CASE NO.

17-CV-00101-JCS

James A. Lassart - 40913

JLassart@mpbf.com

Nicholas Larson - 275870

NLarson@mpbf.com

MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY

88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108-5530

Telephone: (415) 788-1900

Facsimile: (415) 393-8087

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an

Arizona corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIDECAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a

Delaware corporation, SIDE.CR LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company, UNITED

SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a

Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

Case No.: 17-cv-00101-JCS

PROPOSED ORDER RE CONTINUING

HEARING DATE AND RELATED

DEADLINES FOR PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

STIPULATION CASE NO.

17-CV-00101-JCS

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court hereby Orders as

follows:

1. The MSJ hearing currently schedule for March 1, 2018, will be continued to April 19,

2018.

2. The responses currently due on January 16, 2018, in advance of the MSJ hearing, will

be due on April 5, 2018 and the replies will be due April 12, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________

Honorable Jon S. Tigar

January 18, 2018

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pretrial and trial dates are continued as follows: 

 Deadline to file pretrial conference statement: June 5, 2018 

 Pretrial conference: June 15, 2018 

 Trial: July 9, 2018 May 3
No. 82-31 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1982 

TOM BROGAN, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

VS . 

JOHN BLANCHARD, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Park 

Honorable Jack Shanstrom, Judge presiding 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Huppert and Swindlehurst, Livingston, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Robert L. Jovick, Livingston, Montana 

Submitted on briefs: April 22, 1982 

Decided: September 23, 1982 

Filed. .SEF 23 1982 

a?-!. -+f.bv~itta r)- -. ~/w+ 

v 4 Clerk 
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on jury 

verdict by the Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County, 

Montana. We affirm. 

Plaintiff brought an action alleging defendant negligently 

failed to close a farm gate allowing plaintiff's horses to 

escape onto a highway where they were subsequently killed. 

Jury trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff and the 

sole issue on appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence 

to support the verdict. 

In August of 1977, defendant went to plaintiff's farm 

premises to return a tractor belonging to plaintiff. It was 

necessary for the defendant to pass through two gates on 

plaintiff's premises. Plaintiff testified that defendant 

told him that he did not expressly remember shutting the 

gates, but that he did not remember leaving them open. 

Plaintiff's wife testified that defendant admitted leaving a 

gate open, but she did not remember any specific language 

attributable to the defendant. Defendant disputed the 

testimony of plaintiff's wife. 

The morning following the day when defendant went to 

plaintiff's premises, two of plaintiff's horses were found 

dead on or near the highway, abutting plaintiff's farmstead. 

The two boys that had accompanied defendant to plaintiff's 

premises testified positively that defendant had closed the 

gates. 

The issue presented for resolution is whether under 

plaintiff's proof an issue was created for the jury on 

liability. We hold that there was evidence from which the 

jury might infer that plaintiff's horses escaped as the result of 
defendant's negligence in leaving the gates open. 

The jury need not have believed the testimony of the 

boys who accompanied the defendant on the day in question. 

Jacques v. Montana National Guard (1982), Mont. I 

P. 2d , 39 St.Rep. 1565, 1572. The jury could have 

believed the testimony of plaintiff's wife that defendant 

admitted leaving the gates open. There was the further 

circumstantial evidence that the horses were found dead near 

the roadway on the day following defendant's visitation. 

This Court must view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party. Gunnels v. Hoyt (1981), 

Mont. , 633 P.2d 1187, 38 St.Rep. 1492, 1495. 

Where there is substantial credible evidence to support a 

jury verdict, it cannot be overturned on the basis of insufficiency. Nelson v. Hartman (1982), Mont. -1 - 

P. 2d , 39 St.Rep. 1409; Jacques v. Montana National Guard, 

supra. 

We affirm. 

Justice