alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nick HALTEH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-7708.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.

Nick Halteh, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nick Halteh seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that rea*751sonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Halteh has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
The Honor able Gor don J . Quist, Uni t ed S t ates District J udg e for the Western District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0206n.06 No. 09-3979 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
AK IL McINTOSH, P etitioner -Appellee,
v. STUART HUDSON, Respondent-Appellan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

TH E N OR TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

OP IN ION

BEFORE: BOGG S and McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and Q UIST, District Judge. * P ER CURIAM . This case poses the question whether the statute of limitations for habe as corpus c laims und er

2 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 2 4 4 (d )( 1 )( D) re qu i re s th at th e d ef en d an td em o n s tra t e du e dil ige nce in o r d e r to r e c e iv e th e late r s ta rt d a te f o r a p p e a l- b a s e d , a s w e ll a s c o n v ic ti o n - b a s ed, cla ims. The district court con cl uded that due dilig ence is not required in a ppeal- based c laims and there fore Pe tit ion e r M c I nto sh ’s a

pp e a l- ba se d c la im wa s ti me ly . It de te rm ine d th a t Mc Into shwa s e nti tle d to
no tic e of his a pp e llate ri g hts , de sp ite his g uil ty ple a , a nd the re fo re that th e state c ourt ’s de nia l of his delay ed appeal viol ated feder al l aw. The district court therefor e gra nted a conditional writ of habea s
c or pu s, re qu ir ingre ins tate me nt o f M c I nto sh ’s dir e c t a pp e a l w ith in s ixty

da y s or re le a se of

Mc Into sh from prison.No. 09-3979

McI ntosh v. Hudson

- 2 - Ohio reinstated Mc I ntosh’s appea l. The Ohio Court of Appea ls has now hea rd, and r ejec ted, M cI ntosh’s claim, Sta te v . M c In tos h , 2 0 1 0
- O h io

- 6 4 7 1 , 2 0 1 0 WL 5 5 5 0 2 5 2 ( O h io Ap p . D e c . 30, 2010); and the time for

him to seek revie w with the Supreme Court of O hio has passed, seeOh io S
. Ct. P rac . R. 2.2(A) (r equiringappea l within 45 day s of dec ision). There fore , McIntosh’s state appe al has been completed, and the a ppeal be fore this court has bec ome moot. Se e Hi ll v . S he e ts , No. 08- 4654, 2010 WL 4627896, at *3 (6th Cir. 2010) (holdingthat when the state fulfilled one of the two options ordere d by

the district court for

habea s relief

, the appe al to this court was moot). The sole rea son we dismiss this a ppeal is that it is now moot and thus im mune from r eview; Ha ll v . B e als , 3 96 U. S. 4 5, 48 (1 96 9) ; w he the r a ri g ht to no tic e of a pp e a l in the se c ir c ums tanc e s is

“ c le arl y e sta bli sh e d, ” ho we ve r, re ma ins an op e n qu e sti on . B e c a us e we la c k th e a

uth or ity to v a c a te the district court’s now -moot judgme nt gr anting habea s relief , we DI SM ISS the appe al for w ant of jurisdiction.
(May 20, 1985)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Jorge L. Negron, Petitioner, v E. W. Jones, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Application, pursuant to CPLR 7002 (b) (2), for writ of habeas corpus denied (see, *People ex rel. Frazier v Coombe,*87 AD2d 904). Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillippe Mejia, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 712] —

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered on or about June 29, 2010, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Counsel for appellant is referred to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 606.5. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1397

RANDY L. THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

YNEZ OLSHAUSEN; MARY ELLEN MCDONALD; PETER

GORMAN; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE

DEPARTMENT; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG; STATE OF

NC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00130)

Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Weston Johnson, HELMS,

MULLISS & WICKER, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Richard Harcourt

Fulton, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina;

Thomas J. Ziko, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Randy L. Thomas seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order transferring this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action to a

particular district court judge. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Thomas seeks to appeal is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
#### FINK, Appellant, v. STALBIRD, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Nathan Fink against Ernest E. Stalbird.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 of PHL Variable Insurance Company (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof 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 operations of the Company.

|                          |                       |        |                                    
|------------------------- | --------------------- | ------ | -----------------------------------
|/s/ Philip K. Polkinghorn | /s/ Peter A. Hofmann 
|Name:                     | Philip K. Polkinghorn | Name:  | Peter A. Hofmann                   
|Title:                    | President             | Title: | Senior Executive Vice President and
|                          |                       |        | Chief Financial Officer            
|Date:                     | May 15 2009           | Date:  | May 15, 2009                       



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PHL Variable Insurance Company and will be retained by PHL Variable Insurance Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pablo Figueroa, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 840]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J), rendered May 11, 2009, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 30 days, concurrent with a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations.

The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant attempted to break the seatbelt buckle in the police van or that he indeed did deliberately break the seatbelt buckle in order to free himself and lunge at one of the officers. This established the element of intent to damage property *(see*Penal Law § 145.00 [1]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.2



BEA SYSTEMS, INC.



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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I,
William M. Klein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|Date: June 13, 2003 | /s/    WILLIAM M. KLEIN
|------------------- | -----------------------

| | 
| | 

William M. Klein

Chief Financial Officer
APPEARANCE 

United States Bankruptcy Court 

For the Northern District of Illinois 

In re ROBERT J. PRUIM and 

ATHENA M. PRUIM, Case No. 10-00888 

Debtor(s) 

I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY FILE MY APPEARANCE AS ATTORNEY FOR 

Centrue Bank 

321 W. Main St. 

Ottawa, IL 61350 

John T. Hundley The Sharp Law Firm, P.C. 

Print Name on this Line Firm Name 

FIRM ID NUMBER: 1 1 0 9 5 

Signature 1115 Harrison St. - P.O. Box 906 

ATTORNEY ID NUMBER 3123403 Street Address 

Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 

City State Zip 

Telephone 618-242-0246 

Trial Attorneys* 

John T. Hundley 

Print Name 

*Request is made for trial attorney to avoid possible conflicts in scheduling. 

DATED: January 19, 2010 

TYPE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL: 

 CJA ,RETAINED ,SELF ,NONE OTHER ,PUB DEF 

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: 

Party Code: P D TP 

Case 10-00888 Doc 10 Filed 01/19/10 Entered 01/19/10 09:59:51 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I certify under penalty of perjury under the 

laws of the United States of America that the foregoing document is being 

electronically filed through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System this date, 

which automatically results in a true and correct copy being served electronically 

upon: 

 John E. Gierum 

 David R. Brown, Trustee 

 United States Trustee 

January 19, 2010 By /s/ Linda Kennedy 

 Linda Kennedy 

 

THE SHARP LAW FIRM, P.C. 

1115 Harrison Street 

P.O. Box 906 

Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 

(618) 242-0246 

Linda\centruebank\southcreekdevelopment\pruimbk\appearance 

Case 10-00888 Doc 10 Filed 01/19/10 Entered 01/19/10 09:59:51 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 30 

Celebrating February 2, 2011, as the 25th anniversary of ‘‘National Women 

and Girls in Sports Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 27, 2011 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. MURRAY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

FEBRUARY 2, 2011 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Celebrating February 2, 2011, as the 25th anniversary of 

‘‘National Women and Girls in Sports Day’’. 

Whereas women’s athletics are one of the most effective avenues available for the women of the United States to develop self-discipline, initiative, confidence, and leadership 

skills; 

Whereas sports and fitness activities contribute to emotional 

and physical well-being; 

Whereas women need strong bodies as well as strong minds; 

Whereas the history of women in sports is rich and long, but 

there has been little national recognition of the significance of the athletic achievements of women; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 30 ATS 

Whereas there is a need to restore women to leadership positions in athletics to ensure a fair representation of the 

abilities of women and to provide role models for young 

female athletes; 

Whereas the bonds built between women through athletics 

help to break down the social barriers of racism and prejudice; 

Whereas the communication and cooperation skills learned 

through athletic experience play a key role in the contributions of an athlete to her home, workplace, and society; 

Whereas women’s athletics has produced such winners as Flo 

Hyman, whose spirit, talent, and accomplishments distinguished her above others and who exhibited the true 

meaning of fairness, determination, and team play; 

Whereas parents feel that sports are equally important for 

boys and girls and that sports and fitness activities provide important benefits to girls who participate; 

Whereas early motor-skill training and enjoyable experiences 

of physical activity strongly influence life-long habits of 

physical fitness; 

Whereas the performances of female athletes in the Olympic 

Games are a source of inspiration and pride to the people 

of the United States; 

Whereas the athletic opportunities for male students at the 

collegiate and high school levels remain significantly 

greater than those for female students; and 

Whereas the number of funded research projects focusing on 

the specific needs of women athletes is limited and the 

information provided by these projects is imperative to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 30 ATS 

the health and performance of future women athletes: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) celebrates February 2, 2011, as the 25th 

3 anniversary of ‘‘National Women and Girls in Sports 

4 Day’’; and 

5 (2) encourages State and local jurisdictions, ap6 propriate Federal agencies, and the people of the 

7 United States to observe ‘‘National Women and 

8 Girls in Sports Day’’ with appropriate ceremonies 

9 and activities. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1



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), the undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the
Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 4, 2005 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ F. William Conner  
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | F. William Conner      
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1
                                                                    ------------

                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made and
entered into as of June 1, 1999, by and between EVERCOM, INC., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company") and DENNIS L. WHIPPLE (the "Executive").

                                   RECITALS:
                                   --------

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have entered into that certain
Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") dated as of September 7, 1998.
(Unless the context otherwise requires, all capitalized terms used herein which
are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the
Employment Agreement).

     WHEREAS, by scrivener's error, the Employment Agreement erroneously set
forth the parties' agreement with respect to the Severance Payment, and the
parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement to correct this error.

     NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows:

     1.  The second sentence of Section 5(b) is hereby amended by inserting the
phrase "or in 1999" after the phrase "in 1998".  Accordingly, the Severance
Payment in 1999 shall be $1,200,000.

     2.  The Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed.

     3.  This Amendment shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto, their heirs, personal representatives, successors and
assigns.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date
first above written.

COMPANY:                         EXECUTIVE:
-------                          ---------

EVERCOM, INC.,
a Delaware corporation             /s/ DENNIS L. WHIPPLE
                                 ------------------------
                                 DENNIS L. WHIPPLE

By:    /s/ JEFFREY D. CUSHMAN
       -----------------------
Name:   Jeffrey D. Cushman
Title:  CFO/Vice-President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Chance PURNELL, Appellant.

No. 07-3257.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on Dec. 8, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 13, 2009.

*793Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Giovanni 0. Campbell, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: McKEE, SMITH, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

Chance Purnell appeals the 20 month sentence of imprisonment imposed by the district court after Purnell violated the terms of his supervised release. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

Because we write primarily for the parties, it is not necessary to recite the facts or history of this case except insofar as may be helpful to our brief discussion. The guideline range for the two Grade C violations Purnell admitted was 8-14 months. The maximum statutory penalty was two years. On appeal, Purnell argues that the district court’s sentence of 20 months incarceration was unreasonable because it was wholly punitive, disregarded his need for treatment, and ignored the sentencing factors set forth in Section 3558(a). We disagree.

In *Gall v. United States,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), *Id.*at 597. The Supreme Court clarified that we must first ensure that the district court “committed no significant procedural error, such as ... failing to consider the 3553(a) factors ...” *Id.*Absent any procedural error, we must “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under the abuse-of-discretion standard,” taking into account the totality of the circumstances. *Id.*

The district court is required to consider each of the § 3553(a) factors and “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision making authority.” *United States v. Lessner,*498 F.3d 185, 203 (3d Cir.2007) (quoting *Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)).

The record shows that the district court considered Purnell’s criminal history and the seriousness of the underlying violation. *See.*App. 29-30. Despite Purnell’s argument to the contrary, the court also considered his need for drug treatment. Understandably, the court discounted the value of treatment noting that Purnell had frustrated earlier “trusting and generous” efforts at rehabilitation with “calculated deception.” *Id.*at 30.

Purnell also argues that the trial court did not reasonably apply the 3553(a) factors because the sentence exceeds the advisory Guideline range. That argument is frivolous.

Given Purnell’s repeated infractions, and his repeated attempts to deceive his probation officers, drug counselors and the court, as well as the number of times he failed supervised release, the court acted quite reasonably in imposing a sentence that exceeded the recommended range.

II.

For all of the above reasons, we will affirm the district court’s sentence.