alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 275 

Designating October 30, 2011, as a national day of remembrance for nuclear 

weapons program workers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. 

UDALL of New Mexico, Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. GRAHAM, 

Mr. CRAPO, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. CORKER, and Mr. REID) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating October 30, 2011, as a national day of 

remembrance for nuclear weapons program workers. 

Whereas, since World War II, hundreds of thousands of men 

and women, including uranium miners, millers, and haulers, have served the United States by building the nuclear defense weapons of the United States; 

Whereas these dedicated workers paid a high price for their 

service to develop a nuclear weapons program for the 

benefit of the United States, including having developed 

disabling or fatal illnesses; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 275 ATS 

Whereas the Senate recognized the contribution, service, and 

sacrifice these patriotic men and women made for the defense of the United States in Senate Resolution 151, 

111th Congress, agreed to May 20, 2009, and Senate 

Resolution 653, 111th Congress, agreed to September 28, 

2010; 

Whereas a national day of remembrance time capsule has 

been crossing the United States, collecting artifacts and 

the stories of the nuclear workers relating to the nuclear 

defense era of the United States; 

Whereas these stories and artifacts reinforce the importance 

of recognizing these nuclear workers; and 

Whereas these patriotic men and women deserve to be recognized for the contribution, service, and sacrifice they have 

made for the defense of the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates October 30, 2011, as a national 

3 day of remembrance for nuclear weapons program 

4 workers, including uranium miners, millers, and 

5 haulers, of the United States; and 

6 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

7 to support and participate in appropriate cere8 monies, programs, and other activities to commemo9 rate October 30, 2011, as a national day of remem10 brance for past and present workers in the nuclear 

11 weapons program of the United States. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case 10-00363 Doc 30 Filed 07/21/10 Entered 07/21/10 14:39:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
Case 10-00363 Doc 30 Filed 07/21/10 Entered 07/21/10 14:39:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
Case 10-00363 Doc 30 Filed 07/21/10 Entered 07/21/10 14:39:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Earl Lynn SNEED, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-5312.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 29, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 15, 2011.

Charles H. Harp, II, Charles H. Harp, II, P.C., Lexington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Graham T. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Earl Lynn Sneed pled guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). He appeals the district court’s addition of four levels to his offense level based on his use of a firearm in connection with another *903felony, animal cruelty under North Carolina law. We affirm.

We review Sneed’s sentence using an abuse of discretion standard of review. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Sneed alleges a procedural sentencing error, improper calculation of the Guidelines range. *Id.*

The burden is on the Government to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the district court should apply a sentencing enhancement. *United States v. Blauvelt,*638 F.3d 281, 293 (4th Cir.2011), *petition for cert. filed,*79 U.S.L.W. 3712 (U.S. June 6, 2011) (No. 10-1473). When reviewing the district court’s application of the Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. *United States v. Mehta,*594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 279, 178 L.Ed.2d 184 (2010).

The Guideline in question, *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 2K2.1 (b)(6) (“USSG”) (2010), provides for a four-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm ... in connection with another felony offense.” USSG § 2K2.1 (b)(6). “[T]he purpose of Section 2K2.1 (b)(6) [is] to punish more severely a defendant who commits a separate felony offense that is rendered more dangerous by the presence of a firearm.” *United States v. Jenkins,*566 F.3d 160, 164 (4th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record and briefs on appeal convinces us that the district court did not err in finding USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6) applicable to Sneed’s conduct. The district court’s finding that Sneed was not impaired by the medication he had taken when he shot and killed his stepson’s dog is not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the four-level enhancement, and the seventy-one month sentence imposed is reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 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 the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00442

- CR

Rosser B. Melton, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 4

o f Den ton County (CR

- 2013

- 01511

- Y )

November 27 , 2013

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that t he appeal is dismissed for

want of prosecution

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE 3 MONTH PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-27-1997
<CASH>                                          29,645
<SECURITIES>                                    17,831
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   721
<PP&E>                                           5,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,006
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,169
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,249
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,449
<SALES>                                         18,281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,281
<CGS>                                           11,171
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,458
<INCOME-TAX>                                       369
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,089
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,089
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
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 Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick C. Barry,
Chief Financial 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,
that:

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

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

/s/ Patrick C. Barry
-------------------------
Patrick C. Barry
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Brown, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a *742judgment of the Supreme" Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered July 7, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Although there were certain discrepancies between the complainant’s identification testimony and prior statements he made to the police, questions as to the credibility of a witness are for the trier of the facts to resolve *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932; *People v Gruttola,*43 NY2d 116; *People v Di Girolamo,*108 AD2d 755, *lv denied*64 NY2d 1133).

A review of the record demonstrates that the police arrested the defendant only after the complainant spontaneously identified him as one of the perpetrators of a robbery which had occurred 10 days earlier; thus there was probable cause to make the arrest and no suggestiveness with respect to the identification itself *(see, People v Gonzalez,*61 AD2d 666, *affd*46 NY2d 1011).

Further, we find that the defendant’s trial attorney provided "meaningful representation” under the totality of circumstances so as to satisfy the constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147). There is nothing in the record to indicate that there were any alibi witnesses available to the defendant; therefore counsel did not have a reasonable basis to present such a defense and cannot be criticized for the failure to do so *(see, People v Ford,*46 NY2d 1021; *People v Lane,*101 AD2d 925, *affd*64 NY2d 1047). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17041 and #17042; Georgia Disaster Number GA-00124]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Georgia dated 07/20/2021. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         03/25/2021 through 03/26/2021.
 DATES: Issued on 07/20/2021. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         09/20/2021. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/20/2022.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Coweta. *Contiguous Counties:* Georgia: Carroll, Fayette, Fulton, Heard, Meriwether, Spalding, Troup. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.250Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
6.000Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17041 C and for economic injury is 17042 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Georgia. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2021-15829 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kevin Wayne BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50178

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 15, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bem-*239porad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kevin Wayne Brown appeals the 18-month sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of his supervised release. Brown argues that the term of imprisonment, which was outside of the advisory guidelines range of six to 12 months, was unreasonable.

This court recently determined that revocation sentences are ordinarily reviewed under a “plainly unreasonable standard.” *United States v. Miller,*634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.2011), *'petition for cert. filed*(May 27, 2011) (No. 10-10784). We review Brown’s sentence, however, for plain error because he failed to object to his sentence in the district court. *See United States v. Whitelaw,*580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir.2009).

Because the 18-month sentence Brown received on revocation is not greater than the term authorized by statute, it is “clearly legal.” *United States v. Pena,*125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.1997). We have consistently upheld revocation sentences exceeding the guidelines range but not exceeding the statutory maximum. *See, e.g., Whitelaw,*580 F.3d at 265; *United States v. Jones,*484 F.3d 783, 791-93 (5th Cir.2007). Brown essentially asks this court to substitute his view of what an appropriate sentence would be for that of the district court, which we will not do. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Brown has not shown plain error. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

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.
EXHIBIT 10.5Cing2284.A.004This Amendment (cing2284.A.004), effective as of April 1, 2008 (“Effective Date”), between **StarTekUSA, Inc. (“StarTek”),**a Delaware corporation, and **AT&T Mobility LLC,**(“AT&T Mobility”) a Delawarelimited liability company, on behalf of itself and its Affiliates, amends that certain ProviderMaster Service Agreement dated January 1, 2002.**RECITALS**WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. and StarTek entered into a Provider Master Service Agreementon January 1, 2002 (the “MSA”);WHEREAS AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. assigned its rights and delegated its duties under the MSA andall statements of work thereunder to AT&T Mobility;WHEREAS AT&T Mobility and StarTek desire to amend the term of the MSA;NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agreeto amend the MSA as follows: 1. Section 8. “Term and Extension of Relationship” of the MSA is hereby deleted in itsentirety and it is replaced by the following:“8. Term and Extension of RelationshipThis MSA is effective as of March 21, 2002 (‘Effective Date’) and ends on April 30,2008.” 3. Except as amended by this Amendment, the MSA and all responsibilities are not otherwisemodified, revoked or superseded and remain in full force and effect.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Amendment as of the date stated above.       **StarTek USA, Inc.** **AT&T Mobility LLC by itsauthorized Representative AT&TServices, Inc.**       By: /s/ Patrick M. Hayes By: /s/ Richard Steadman              Printed Name: Patrick M. Hayes Printed Name: Richard Steadman              Title: COO Title: AVP Global Strategic Sourcing              Date: 3/31/2008 Date: 31 March 2008       **Proprietary Information** The information contained in this Agreement is not for use or disclosure outside AT&T Mobility,StarTek, their affiliated companies and their third party representatives, except under writtenAgreement by the contracting Parties.
Exhibit 32.1

NANOGEN, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Nanogen Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Howard C. Birndorf, 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, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|               |  |                                                                      
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|August 9, 2007 |  | /s/    HOWARD C. BIRNDORF                                            
|               |  | Howard C. Birndorf Chairman of the Board, and
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>


COMMON STOCK                                                        COMMON STOCK

  NUMBER                                                               SHARES
------------                                                        ------------
CL                                COLMENA CORP
------------                                                        ------------
Incorporated under the laws of                                   See reverse for
the State of Delaware                                        certain definitions
                                                               CUSIP 195196 10 0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS CERTIFIES THAT

                                    SPECIMEN


IS THE RECORD HOLER OF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, $.01 PAR VALUE, OF
===================================COLMENA CORP.================================
transferable on the books of the Corportion by the holder hereof in person or by
duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.
This Certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer
Agent and Registrar
   WITNESS the facsimile signatures of teh duly authorized officers of the
Corporation.

Dated:

 SPECIMEN                                    SPECIMEN
Secretary                                    President
#### In the Matter of Keli-Koran Luchey, Respondent-Appellant, v Board of Education of City School District of The City of Niagara Falls et al., Appellants- Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Carni and Martoche, JJ.