alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. David Brian BERN, Appellant.

No. 03-3003.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

Shawn S. Wehde, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David Brian Bern, Oxford, WI, pro se.

Forest David Eastman, Clear Lake, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

David Bern appeals the district court’s1 judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine (mixture) and to manufacture 5 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and (B), and 846. In a brief filed pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bern challenges the admission of a gun into evidence at trial and the imposition of a role enhancement for sentencing purposes.

Following careful review, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s admission of the gun found by law enforcement officials in a vehicle parked in front of Bern’s home. *See United States v. Johnson,*28 F.3d 1487,1498 (8th Cir.1994) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence), ce*rt. denied,*513 U.S. 1098, 115 S.Ct. 768, 130 L.Ed.2d 664 (1995). Bern’s objection centered around the government’s inability to identify the registered owner of the gun, a fact to which the parties stipulated. Like the district court, we see no relationship between Bern’s objection and the gun’s admissibility, and we find no violation of *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

Turning to Bern’s sentence, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in adjusting Bern’s offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines upward 3 levels for his role as a manager or supervisor of criminal activity involving 5 or more participants. *See*U.S.S.G § 3B1.1(b); *United States v. Zimmer,*299 F.3d 710, 723-24 (8th Cir.2002)(standard of review; manager or supervisor need only have managed or supervised one other participant of criminal conspiracy), *cert. denied,*537 U.S. 1146, 123 S.Ct. 952, 154 L.Ed.2d 848 (2003).

Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
Trước khi đi làm, hãy hỏi chính bạn rằng “Hôm nay mình có khoẻ không?”

Hãy Bảo Vệ Mọi Người Ở Mọi Nơi Bằng Cách Không Làm Việc Khi Bạn Đang Bệnh.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1678

GRAHAM H. ARCHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

W.D. WILLIAMS, Doctor; D.M. PORRECA; MARSHALL

UNIVERSITY, Research and Economic Development

Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior

District Judge. (CA-94-534-3)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Graham H. Archer, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl Lynne Connelly, CAMPBELL, WOODS, BAGLEY, EMERSON, MCNEER & HERNDON, Huntington, West

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Graham Archer appeals the district court's order dismissing

his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Archer v. Williams, No. CA-94-534-3 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 26, 1996).

Archer filed several motions for appointment of counsel, for correction of clerical errors in the district court's opinion, to

compel, for discovery, and for transcripts at government expense.

We deny these motions. Appellees filed a motion to strike various

documents, filed by Archer with his informal brief, pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 10. We grant the Appellees' motion.

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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21217-21218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10549]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed partial consent decree in United States v. 
Metropolitan Dade County, et al., Case No. Civ-93-1109-Moreno, was 
lodged on April 19, 1995, with the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Florida. The consent decree settles all claims for 
injunctive relief and civil penalties brought against Metropolitan Dade 
County and the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority Department under 
Sections 301, 309 (b) and (d), and 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 
U.S.C. 1311, 1319 (b) and (d), and 1342, and sets forth remedial 
measures, supplemental environmental projects, and a civil penalty.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United 
States v. Metropolitan Dade County, et al., DOJ Ref. #90-5-1-1-4022.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, 99 N.E. 4th 
Street, Miami, Florida 33132; the Region IV Office of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30365; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
[[Page 21218]] Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-
0892. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained in person 
or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In requesting a copy please refer to the 
referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $36.75 (25 cents 
per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-10549 Filed 4-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION

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)

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), each of the undersigned officers of Fly Leasing Limited (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | 1. | the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report), furnished to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: March 15, 2013   
|                       
|/s/ Colm Barrington    
|Colm Barrington        
|Chief Executive Officer
|Fly Leasing Limited    
|                       
|Date: March 15, 2013   
|                       
|/s/ Gary Dales         
|Gary Dales             
|Chief Financial Officer
|Fly Leasing Limited
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Arbor EnTech Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the "Report"), as amended by this Report on Form 10-QSB/A as filed with the Commission on the date
hereof (the "Amended Report"), Harvey Houtkin, as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|September 17, 2003 |  |  | /s/HARVEY HOUTKINHarvey Houtkin
Chief Executive Officer
|------------------ |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

ORDER RE: APEX DEPOSITION OF 

LARRY PAGE

For the reasons explained on the record at the April 25, 2017 hearing, the Court denied 

Defendants’ request to take the deposition of Alphabet Inc. CEO Larry Page; however, on or 

before April 26, 2017, Mr. Page shall answer the interrogatory posed by the Court at the hearing.

As the matter was decided on an expedited basis, the parties’ written submissions were not 

filed. On or before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 26, 2017, the parties shall file redacted 

versions of their letter briefs on the public docket. The party asserting that the redactions are 

needed shall file the required supporting declaration on or before Friday, April 28, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 276 Filed 04/26/17 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40913

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FELIX BOTELLO, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CR-23-1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Felix Botello, Jr., raises an 

argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-

09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that knowledge of drug type and quantity is not 

an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense. Accordingly, the motion for summary

disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40913 Document: 00513804254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
D.J., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-0482

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER DENYING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

Defendants’ administrative motion to redact portions of the order excluding Michael

Wagner, restricting use of financial evidence at trial, and denying other relief (Dkt. No. 2173) is

DENIED. The relevant terms of the Tyto acquisition are no more sensitive than other alreadypublic information about Uber’s business dealings involving LiDAR and Anthony Levandowski

(e.g., the terms of the Otto acquisition), and are important to the public’s ability to understand

both this case generally and the problems with Wagner’s opinion specifically. In a similar vein,

Wagner’s “example calculation” would offer no greater insight into Uber’s internal projections

than would other already-public information — including information internal to Uber that

defendants did not seek to redact in the very order at issue — but is important to the public’s

ability to understand the problems with Wagner’s reasoning. Under these circumstances,

defendants have not shown compelling reasons that would trump the public’s right to access. 
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

For now, the order will be filed on the public docket with all requested redactions

applied. All redactions will be lifted, however, unless defendants obtain emergency relief from

the Federal Circuit by NOVEMBER 13 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 10.2
 Form of Voting Common Stock Purchase Warrant
 ACT
 
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.  Voting Common Stock Purchase Warrant
  A.
    
    This Warrant is issued to , an individual or his successors in interest,
assigns or transferees (collectively, the Warrant Holder), in consideration for their
Participation in the 2008B Preferred Equity transactions by Axcess International, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the Company).;B.
    
    The total number of shares of the Companys Voting Common Stock (as defined in Section 9(a)
hereof) (the Warrant Shares) to be issued to the Warrant Holder is
 shares (*** ***); andC.
    
    This Warrant shall be exercisable at any time and from time to time on or prior to the
September 1, 2013.D.
    
    This Warrant shall be callable by the Company if and when the Companys common stock share
price exceeds $3.00 per share for at least 20 consecutive trading days. The Company shall
notify the holder and the holder shall have twenty (20) business days to acknowledge and fund
the exercised of the warrant.
 Exercise Price
 Section 1. Exercise of Warrant .
 ANNEX
A Total Exercise Price




---



##### 



Section 2. Investment Representation .
  Section 3. Validity of Warrant and Issue of Shares .
   Section 4. Transfer of Rights .
 ANNEX B Warrant
 Section 5. Lost, Mutilated or Missing Warrant .
  Section 6. Rights of Warrant Holder .
  Section 7. Successors .
  Section 8. Miscellaneous .




---



##### 



Section 9. Notices .
   
    AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC.By:
    /s/ Allan FrankAllan Frank, Chief Financial Officer Issuance Date: September 1 st , 2008
 By Secretary:
    
    /s/ Allan FrankAllan Frank, Secretary
www.fda.gov/nutritioneducation

Calories 240 Amount per serving

Serving size 11/2 cup (208g)

4 servings per container

% Daily Value*

Total Fat 4g

Saturated Fat 1.5g

 Trans Fat 0g

Cholesterol 5mg

Sodium 430mg

Total Carbohydrate 46g

Dietary Fiber 7g

Total Sugars 4g

Includes 2g Added Sugars

Protein 11g

5%

8%

2%

19%

17%

25%

4%

The % Daily Value (DV) tells you how much a nutrient in

a serving of food contributes to a daily diet. 2,000 calories

a day is used for general nutrition advice.

*

Vitamin D 2mcg

Calcium 260mg

Iron 6mg

Potassium 240mg

10%

20%

35%

6%

Todas las palabras ocultas a 

continuación se pueden 

encontrar en la etiqueta de 

Información Nutricional.

Encuéntrelas allí primero... 

¡luego utilícelas al momento 

de comparar y elegir aperitivos!

• azúcar agregada

• calcio

• calorías

• colesterol

• fibra alimentaria

• hierro

• Información Nutricional

• porcentaje del valor diario

• potasio

• proteínas

• grasas saturadas

• tamaño de la porción

• porciones por envase

• sodio

• carbohidratos totales

• grasas totales

• azúcar total

• grasa transgénica

• vitamina D

¡Tome decisiones 

inteligentes!

Tamaño de las 

porciones

Preste atención 

al tamaño de 

las porciones y 

a la cantidad de 

porciones que 

come o bebe 

para determinar la 

cantidad total de 

calorías y nutrientes 

que consume. 

Sopa de letras de 

la etiqueta nutricional

¡No es 

necesario 

buscar! 

Es fácil usar la etiqueta de 

Información Nutricional. 

¡Le presentamos algunos 

consejos breves para tomar 

decisiones inteligentes!

Elegir los nutrientes de 

manera inteligente 

Utilice el % de valor diario (%VD) para 

determinar si una porción del alimento 

tiene alto o bajo contenido nutrientes. Al 

momento de comparar alimentos, siga 

esta guía: El 5% de VD o menos de un 

nutriente por porción se considera bajo y 

el 20% de VD o más de un nutriente por 

porción se considera alto.

Considerar 

las calorías

1 2 3

Al momento de comparar 

alimentos, siga esta guía: 

100 calorías por porción 

de una comida individual 

se consideran una cantidad 

moderada y 400 calorías 

o más por porción de

una comida individual se

consideran una cantidad

alta.

Revisado: Octubre de 2018
Jahmar Philip DUNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3423

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Jahmar Philip Dunn appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation following an open plea and imposing a sixty-month prison sentence. We affirm the revocation of probation and Dunn's sentence without further discussion. We do, however, *831agree with Dunn that the trial court erred in failing to enter a written order, consistent with its oral pronouncement at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, that Dunn, a violent felony offender of special concern, would pose a danger to the community. *See* § 948.06(8)(e)1., Fla. Stat. (2018) ("If the court, after conducting the hearing required by paragraph (d), determines that a violent felony offender of special concern has committed a violation of probation or community control other than a failure to pay costs, fines, or restitution, [it] shall [m]ake written findings as to whether or not the violent felony offender of special concern poses a danger to the community ....").

Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to enter an appropriate order consistent with its earlier oral pronouncement. *See**Arnone v. State* , 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("[W]here a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e)1[.] for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement." (citing *Bell v. State* , 150 So. 3d 1214, 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ; *Martin v. State* , 87 So. 3d 813, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) )).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 802 

Condemning any attempts by Russia to claim sovereignty over any portion 

of Ukraine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning any attempts by Russia to claim sovereignty 

over any portion of Ukraine. 

Whereas the Russian Federation violated the sovereignty of 

Ukraine beginning with the illegal annexation of Crimea 

and its invasion into eastern Ukraine; 

Whereas beginning in February 2022, the Russian Federation sought to further violate Ukraine’s sovereignty by 

launching unprovoked military action against Ukraine; 

Whereas on September 22, 2022, the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization condemned the then upcoming referenda 

stating that the ‘‘[s]ham referenda in the Donetsk, 

Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions of Ukraine 

have no legitimacy and will be a blatant violation of the 

UN Charter. NATO Allies will not recognize their illegal 

and illegitimate annexation. These lands are Ukraine. We 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 802 IS 

call on all States to reject Russia’s blatant attempts at 

territorial conquest’’; 

Whereas on September 23, 2022, President Joe Biden stated, 

‘‘The United States will never recognize Ukrainian territory as anything other than part of Ukraine.’’; 

Whereas beginning on September 23, 2022, Russia conducted 

sham referenda in 4 Ukrainian regions (Donetsk, 

Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia) in an attempt to 

validate Moscow’s illegal annexation of the territory; 

Whereas reports indicate that— 

(1) Ukrainians have been forced to vote in the sham 

referenda ‘‘under a gun barrel’’; and 

(2) Russian officials have visited schools, hospitals, 

and other workplaces to force Ukrainians to vote in favor 

of annexation; and 

Whereas the Kremlin has stated that once the sham 

referenda are concluded, the process of absorbing the annexed areas into Russia will be completed ‘‘promptly’’: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) refuses to recognize any claim of sov3 ereignty by the Russian Federation over any portion 

4 of Ukraine; 

5 (2) views the recent sham referenda beginning 

6 on September 23, 2022, directed by the Government 

7 of the Russian Federation, as a violation of inter8 national law; and 

9 (3) calls upon the President of the United 

10 States to restrict all economic and military aid and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 802 IS 

1 assistance to any nation that recognizes Russian 

2 sovereignty over any portion of Ukraine. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Arbor Entech Corporation (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark
      Shefts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
      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 result of operations of the Company.





**/S/
                MARK SHEFTS****Mark
                Shefts****Chief
                Financial Officer****March
                5, 2008**