alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rajshree P. PATEL, a.k.a. Pria Patel, etc. Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-15075

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 28, 2006.

*949Clarence W. Counts, Jr., R. Fletcher Peacock, Orlando, FL, for Appellant.

Peter J. Sholl, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rajshree P. Patel appeals her sentence of 48 months’ incarceration, imposed after she pled guilty to seven counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Patel asserts the sentence, which is above the advisory Guidelines range of 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment, is unreasonable in light of her limited criminal history. Patel’s sentence is reasonable, and we affirm.

In the *post-Booker*advisory Guidelines system, sentencing requires two steps. *United States v.*Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir.2005). “First, the district court must consult the Guidelines and correctly calculate the range provided by the Guidelines.” *Id.*Second, the court must consider the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include the history and characteristics of the defendant, “the available sentences, the applicable Guideline range, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, and provide the defendant with needed medical care.” *United States v. Winingear,*422 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir.2005).

Once the district court has calculated the sentence under the advisory Guidelines and has considered the sentencing factors in § 3553(a), it can impose a sentence more severe or more lenient than that suggested by the advisory Guidelines range, so long as the sentence is reasonable. *Talley,*431 F.3d at 788. The party challenging the sentence has the burden of “establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).” *Id.*“Review for reasonableness is deferential.” *Id.*

In light of the facts in the record and the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Patel’s sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment is reasonable. In determining this sentence, the district court correctly calculated and considered the advisory sentencing range of 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record shows the district court considered the serious nature and the extent of the offense, the need for deterrence, and the need to provide just punishment for the offense in its decision to impose a sentence above the advisory range. Furthermore, despite Patel’s emphasis on her limited criminal history, this is only one of many factors for the court to consider. Accordingly, we conclude that *950Patel fails to establish that her sentence is unreasonable in light of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and her argument the sentence fails to account for her limited criminal history is without merit.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 13.02**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Genetic Technologies Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-Ffor the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas G. Howitt, Chief Financial Officer, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theU.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)            the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. SecuritiesExchagnge Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 

Name:     **Thomas G. Howitt**

Title:       Chief Financial Officer

 

December 18,2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Genetic Technologies Limited and will be retained byGenetic Technologies Limited and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Vegetable Research: Charleston, SC
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Cucurbit Genetics CooperativeSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Charleston, South Carolina Vegetable Research





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News
- U.S. Vegetable Laboratory History

Newsheadline bar 
   ARS News Articles  Researchers Develop Sweetpotato Clones with Improved Insect Resistance and Weed ToleranceMar 06, 2023Novel Watermelon Rootstock Knocks Out Disease and PestsJun 25, 2019Charleston Gray Watermelon SequencedMay 08, 2019USDA Research Demonstrates New Breeds of Broccoli Remain Packed with Health BenefitsOct 13, 2011Tracking Virus Resistance Genes in Watermelon Made Easier with New
		Molecular MarkersDec 28, 2009Watermelon: Fruit on the Fast TrackDec 11, 2009Tracking and Taming a Tomato VirusSep 05, 2008Bottlegourd Gene May Curb Cucurbit VirusOct 03, 2007New Habanero Blasts Taste Buds—and Pepper PestsJul 02, 2007Prompt Progress Made Against a New Threat to WatermelonApr 11, 2007Watermelon Line May Help Breeders Combat MildewFeb 23, 2006Cutting-Edge Studies Focus on Broccoli, Peas and WatermelonDec 05, 2005Presenting: Two New Southernpea VarietiesMar 23, 2005Resistant Broccoli’s DNA Used in Fight Against Downy MildewApr 30, 2002


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-61-TLS 

 ) 

JESUS MONTES-PEREZ ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 52], filed on January 18, 2018. The Defendant has waived objection 

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings 

and Recommendation [ECF No. 52] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. 

Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Counts 

One (1) and Three (3) of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty 

of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on February 2, 2018. 

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[No. 16109-9-III.

Division Three.

September 16, 1997.]

#### Harvey Cole, et al., *Respondents,*v. Emmi G. Cole, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 96-2-00563-5, Paul A. Bastine, J., entered August 23, 1996. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Hutton, J. Pro Tern., concurred in by Kurtz and Brown, JJ.
Exhibit
32.1





SIGNATURE
EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION CORP.


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350





The undersigned, Steven Weldon, in his
capacities as Chief Executive Officer, President and Secretary, of Signature
Exploration and Production Corp. do each hereby certify that the Form 10-K of
Signature Exploration and Production Corp. for the year ended March 31, 2010
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information
contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Signature Exploration and
Production Corp.





This certification is given by the
undersigned solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is subject to the
knowledge standard contained therein.





Executed this 14th day of July,
2010.





/s/
      Steven WeldonSteven
      WeldonChief
      Executive Officer, Presidentand
      Director
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2025 

To extend the suspension of duty on Fenpropathrin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2005 

Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on Fenpropathrin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FENPROPATHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.22 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Fenpropathrin) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
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 Wound Management Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Scott A. Haire, Chief Executive Officer 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, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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






Date:  May 16, 2011





/S/    Scott A. Haire


Scott A. Haire,


Chairman of the Board,


Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
[No. 35567-8-I.

Division One.

August 11, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Michael Gonzales, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-04504-7, Deborah Fleck, J., entered November 9, 1994. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
# C_2008322EN.01000801.xml

| 17.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 322/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 322/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5211 — Outokumpu/Sogepar)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 322/04)

On 25 July 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5211. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5211. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana 

CLAY HOWARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-172 JVB

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Clay Howard, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE 1.) In WCU #12-12-0533, Howard was found

guilty of possessing drug paraphernalia. (Id.; DE 6-1.) As a result he lost 60 days of earned-time

credits and was demoted to a lower credit-earning class. (DE 6-1.) After Howard filed this

petition, the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) final reviewing authority decided to

vacate the disciplinary conviction at issue, and to remove all sanctions from Howard’s record.

(DE 6-2.) 

Based on the action of the final reviewing authority, the respondent moves to dismiss the

petition as moot. (DE 6.) As the respondent points out, because the disciplinary conviction at

issue has been vacated, there is no longer anything for this court to review. See Brown v.

Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2006) (“For a case to be

justiciable, a live controversy must continue to exist at all stages of review, not simply on the

date the action was initiated.”); Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prison

disciplinary conviction can be challenged in a federal habeas proceeding only if it lengthened the

duration of the petitioner’s confinement). More than 90 days have passed since the motion to

case 1:13-cv-00172-JVB document 8 filed 01/24/14 page 1 of 2
dismiss was filed, and Howard has not filed any response or objection. Accordingly, this action

will be dismissed. 

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss (DE 6) is GRANTED, and the

petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED as moot. 

SO ORDERED on January 24, 2014.

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

United States District Judge

Hammond Division

2

case 1:13-cv-00172-JVB document 8 filed 01/24/14 page 2 of 2
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12

- 40689 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

MANUEL HERRERA REYES, also known as Yuma; RICARDO RAMIREZ VILLA, also known as Rica

,

Defendant s

- Appellant s

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:11

- CR

- 811

- 4

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorneys appointed to represent Manuel Herrera Reyes and Ricardo

Ramirez Villa ha ve mov ed for leave to withdraw and have filed brief s in

accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States

v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez Villa has filed a response. We

have reviewed the brief s and the relevant portions of the record s reflected

* 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 July 14, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 12-40689 Document: 00512696480 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2014No. 12

- 40689

therein , as well as Ramirez Villa ’ s response . We concur with counsel’s

assessment s that the appe al s present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion s for leave to withdraw are GRANTED,

counsel are excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL S

ARE DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-40689 Document: 00512696480 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2014
#### PEAKE, Appellant, v. SALMON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 25, 1899.)

Action by Asa B. Peake against Nell W. Salmon.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See 52 N. Y. Supp. 1147.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

JOSEPH ELWELL, CRYSTAL )

ELWELL, DEBORAH BALDWIN, )

Individually and as custodian for her )

Minor children WM and AM, )

ROBERT BALDWIN, )

) Case No. 2:16-CV-158

Plaintiffs, )

) Hon. James T. Moody, Judge

v. ) Mag. Judge Andrew Rodovich

)

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF )

HAMMOND, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH

THE DOCUMENT SUBPOENA ISSUED TO ATTORNEY DAVID GIBBS

NOW COMES the Defendant, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF HAMMOND, INC., by

and through its attorneys, HeplerBroom, LLC, and hereby moves this Honorable Court, pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii), for an order quashing the Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 document

subpoena issued to attorney David Gibbs. Defendant submits a Memorandum of Law, filed

contemporaneously herewith and which is incorporated by reference herein.

Respectfully submitted,

HeplerBroom, LLC

/s/ Rick Hammond__________________

Rick Hammond

David Albaugh

Bridget Liccardi

HEPLERBROOM, LLC

30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2900

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 230-9100

rick.hammond@heplerbrooom.com

david.albaugh@heplerbroom.com

bridget.liccardi@heplerbroom.com

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 29 filed 09/28/16 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 28, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing,

Defendant’s Motion to Quash the Plaintiffs’ Subpoena to Attorney David Gibbs, with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing(s) to the

following attorneys of record.

John S. Burke

Jared M. Schneider

Higgins & Burke, P.C.

2560 Foxfield Rd. Suite 200

St. Charles, IL 60174

Phone No. (630) 762-9081

Fax No. (630) 762-9084

jburke@higginsandburke.com

/s/ Rick Hammond

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 29 filed 09/28/16 page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





I, David
W. Kalish, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based upon a review of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 of
One Liberty Properties, Inc. (“the Registrant”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(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
Registrant.





Date:  August
      6, 2010
                
                /s/ David W. KalishDavid
      W. KalishSenior
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
#### Lawrence Carp, Appellant, v Sharon L. Marcus, as Administratrix of the Estate of Patricia A. Marcus, Deceased, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Kuhnen, J.), entered April 30, 1984 in Tompkins County, which denied, without prejudice, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendant Sharon L. Marcus.

Appeal dismissed as moot, with costs. No opinion. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### DRAKE, Respondent, v. HEVENOR, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Amy H. Drake against Grace D. Hevenor.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held, that the verdict was contrary to and against the weight of evidence.

WILLIAMS, J., dissents.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00627 document 1-3 filed 12/30/15 page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00627 document 1-3 filed 12/30/15 page 2 of 2