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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4730

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDREW DAVID OWENS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00069-F-1)

Submitted: June 29, 2017 Decided: July 14, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United 

States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine 

L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew David Owens appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his 

supervised release and sentencing him to 21 months’ imprisonment followed by 18 years’ 

supervised release. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation 

of supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We 

will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly 

unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a 

revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is 

unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). A 

revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains the 

sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements 

and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); 

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47. “A court need not be as detailed or specific when 

imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, 

but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” Thompson, 

595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Owens claims that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district 

court failed to adequately explain the reasons for imposing the term of supervised release. 

Having reviewed the record, we find that the district court’s explanation, although brief, 

was sufficient. 
3

Accordingly, we reject Owens’ challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his 

revocation sentence and affirm. We deny Owens’ pro se motion to file a supplemental 

brief and to reconsider the order denying Owens’ motion to replace counsel. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

As
independent oil and gas consultants, Ryder Scott Company, L.P. hereby consents to: (a) the
use of our report setting forth our estimates of proved reserves and future revenues, as
of December 31, 2004, to the interest of Tengasco, Inc. (Tengasco) in certain
oil and gas properties; and, (b) all references to our firm included in or made a part of
Tengascos Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Houston, Texas
March 25, 2005

|                            | 
|--------------------------- | 
|s/Ryder Scott Company, L.P. | 
|                            |
**EXHIBIT
31.1**
 
 Certifications
 
 I, Daniel
Ng, Chief Executive Officer certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of China Digital Media
Corporation.
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, the report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report ("Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c)
presented in this annual report are our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls (all of which do not apply);
and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls, (all of which do
not apply); and
 
 6. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date:
April 15, 2005
 
 
 
 /s/
Daniel Ng
 _____________________
 Daniel Ng
 Chief
Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 145 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 145

     To repeal the prohibition against government restrictions on 
        communications between government agencies and the INS.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 1997

 Mr. Moynihan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To repeal the prohibition against government restrictions on 
        communications between government agencies and the INS.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS ON 
              COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE INS.

    (a) Welfare.--Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 
2275) is repealed.
    (b) Immigration.--Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat 
3009-1834) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsections (a) and (b); and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c) Obligation to 
        Respond to Inquiries.--''.
                                 <all>
```
thirdamd2004ltip.htm


                                                                                                        Exhibit 10.51

     

    

 

    Third
Amendment to the

    Borders
Group, Inc.

    2004
Long-Term Incentive Plan

    


     

    The
Borders Group, Inc. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), is
hereby further amended in the following particulars to reflect the revised
formula for Awards for the non-employee directors approved by the Board of
Directors for calendar 2009 and thereafter:

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              1.

            	
              Paragraph
      9 (e) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
      follows:

            


    

    


    “(e) Awards to Non-employee
Directors.  Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan,
Awards shall be made to non-employee directors in the form of Restricted Shares,
Restricted Share Units or Options, as determined by the Compensation Committee;
provided however, that the aggregate Fair Market Value of the Restricted Shares
and Restricted Share Units and the Black-Scholes value of the Options shall not
exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the standard annual retainer fees to be paid
for the applicable year. In addition, any Awards made to the Non-Executive
Chairman of the Board shall be in the same forms and proportions as annual
retainer fees. If new members are added to the Board during the year, any Awards
made shall be on the same basis (except prorated) as Awards are made to
continuing directors.

    


    Except as herein amended, the Plan
shall remain in full force and effect.

    


    


                                  Borders Group, Inc.

    


    December
9,
2008                                                                                                       By: /s/EDWARD
W.
WILHELM                                                                     

                                        Edward W.
Wilhelm

                                        Executive Vice President
and

                                                                                                                             Chief
Financial Officer

                                                                                                                                 Borders Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
JARROD GRZESIAK, )
Plaintiff, }
vs. } No. 03 C 7862
P.O. THOMAS LOEB, and P.O. JOHN }
SLMPSON #49461, individually, )
Defendants. ;

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff moves to file a second amended complaint, That motion is granted, but with
a caveat.

The motion seeks to include as damages punitive damages against defendant Locb.
Plaintiff claims the failure to include those damages earlier was inadvertent and that Loeb had
to know, from what happencd during discovery, that plaintiff would be seeking those damages.
But that is not necessarily evident. Plaintiff asked Loeb during his deposition questions
relating to his assets, which his counsel directed him not to answer. Plaintiff's counsel said she
would certify the question because plaintiff was claiming punitive damages, but she never did.
On the other hand, defendant did not dispute that claim, nor was the refusal to answer based
on the assertion that punitive damages were not claimed.

Amendments should normally be freely granted, and the prejudice to defendant Loeb
of it being allowed is rather marginal, Still, amendments on the eve of trial are not favored,
and we cannot Know how the lack ofa punitive damages claim and the lack of a pursuit of one

may have impacted the way Loeb has litigated this case. It is a close question. We think the


No. 03 C 7862 Page 2

best course is to permit plaintiff to pursue those damages. It may be that the evidence will not
support such a claim. It may be that the jury will not award such damages. But if it does, we
will revisit this matter upon a fuller record. Therefore, the motion to amend is granted for

now, but subject to reconsideration at a later time.

JAMES B. MORAN
nior Judge, U. S, District Court

Qs JO, 2006.
EXHIBIT 12.1

SUMMIT PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
(Dollars In thousands)

Funds from operations before fixed charges:
       Income available to common unitholders ...................   $24,188
       Interest:
          Expense incurred ......................................    19,975
          Amortization of deferred financing costs ..............       495

          Total .................................................   $44,658
                                                                    =======

Fixed charges:
       Interest expense .........................................   $19,975
       Interest capitalized .....................................     3,476
       Rental fixed charges .....................................        93
       Amortization of deferred financing costs .................       495
                                                                        ---

          Total .................................................   $24,039
                                                                    =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ..............................      1.86
                                                                      =====
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 Silverleaf Resorts, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2001 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Harry J. White, Jr., 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



Dated:  November 19, 2002                           /s/ HARRY J. WHITE, JR.
                                                --------------------------------
                                                        Harry J. White, Jr.
#### OPPENHEIM, Appellant, v. TAMSEN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

September 9, 1896.)

Action by Leo Oppenheim against Edward J. H. Tamsen and others.

B. G. Oppenheim, for appellant.

A. A. Joseph, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1510 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1510

     To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
 Agriculture to convey certain lands to the county of Rio Arriba, New 
                                Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 9, 1997

 Mr. Domenici (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
 Agriculture to convey certain lands to the county of Rio Arriba, New 
                                Mexico.

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

SECTION 1. OLD COYOTE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.

    (a) Conveyance of Property.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Agriculture shall convey by quit-claim deed to the county 
of Rio Arriba, New Mexico, subject to the terms and conditions stated 
in subsection (b), all right, title, and interest of the United States 
in and to the land (including all improvements on the land) known as 
the ``Old Coyote Administrative Site'' located approximately \1/2\ mile 
east of the Village of Coyote, New Mexico on State Road 96, comprising 
1 tract of 130.27 acres and 1 tract of 276.76 acres.
    (b) Terms and Conditions.--
            (1) Consideration.--The conveyance described in subsection 
        (a) shall be in consideration of an amount that is agreeable to 
        the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, 
        and the county of Rio Arriba, New Mexico, payable in full 
        within the 6-month period referred to in subsection (a), or, at 
        the option of the county, in 20 annual payments due on January 
        1 of the first year beginning after the date of enactment of 
        this Act and annually thereafter until the total amount due has 
        been paid. The county shall not be charged interest on amounts 
        owed the United States for the conveyance.
            (2) Release.--On conveyance of the property under 
        subsection (a), the county shall release the United States from 
        any liability for claims relating to the property.
            (3) Reversion.--The conveyance under subsection (a) shall 
        be a conveyance fee simple title to the property, subject to 
        reversion to the United States if the property is used for 
        other than public purposes or if the consideration requirements 
        under paragraph (1) are not met.
                                 <all>
```
Peter Eidenberg, OSB #075778 

peidenberg@keatingjones.com 

Kelly F. Huedepohl, OSB #133896 

khuedepohl@keatingjones.com 

Keating Jones Hughes PC 

One SW Columbia, Suite 800 

Portland, OR 97258-2095 

Phone: (503) 222-9955 

Fax: (503) 796-0699 

Of Attorneys for Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

BRIAN CARLOS, on behalf of himself and Case No. 3:14-cv-00921-MO 

all other similarly situated, 

DEFENDANT'S OFFER TO ALLOW 

v. 

Plaintiff, JUDGMENT 

PA TENA UDE & FELIX, A.P.C., 

Defendants. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, Defendant Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C. hereby offers to 

allow judgment to be given against it and in favor of plaintiff as to Count IV of plaintiff's 

Complaint only. Defendant offers judgment as follows: $1,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. 1692k and for reasonable attorney fees and costs as determined by the Court pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 15 U.S.C. 1692k. Additionally, defendant offers judgment of 

$1,349.83 for all actual damages arising from Count IV of plaintiff's Complaint only. 

This offer of judgment applies to Count IV only. In accepting this offer of judgment, 

plaintiff expressly reserves the right to pursue an appeal of the Court's order on defendant's 

motions for sumary judgment as to Counts I, II and m of plaintiff's Complaint, and the Court's 

denial of plaintiff's motion to certify a class. Upon acceptance of this offer, plaintiff requests the 

DEFENDANT'S OFFER TO ALLOW JUDGMENT - Page 1 

Doc No. 767812 

KEATING JONES HUGHES P.C. 

One Southwest Columbia. Suite 800 

Portland, Oregon 97258-2095 

(503) 222-9955 

Case 3:14-cv-00921-MO Document 59 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 2
Court enter final judgment reflecting the Court's order on defendant's motions for summary 

judgment and its denial of plaintiff's motion to certify a class. 

DATED this 29th day of October, 2015. 

KEATING JONES HUGHES, P.C. 

sf Peter Eidenberg 

Peter Eidenberg, OSB #075778 

peidenberg@keatingjones.com 

Kelly F. Huedepohl, OSB #133896 

khuedepohl@keatingjones.com 

503-222-9955 

Of Attorneys for Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C. 

Defendant's Offer to Allow 

Judgment is hereby ACCEPTED: 

Brian K. Carlos 

Plaintiff 

DATE APPROVED: / ..

 /-r-/�3/ ..

 ·�-' ___S _ 

I I 

Bret Knewtson, OSB No. 033553 

Bret Knewtson, Esq. 

3000 NW Stucki Place, Suite 230-M 

Hillsboro, OR 97124 

Phone: (503) 846-1160 

Fax: (503) 922-3181 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DEFENDANT'S OFFER TO ALLOW JUDGMENT - Page 2 

Doc No. 767812 

KEATING JONES HUGHES P.C. 

One Southwest Colombia, Suite 800 

Portland, Oregon 97258,2095 

(503) 222-9955 

s/ Bret Knewtson

Service by ECF:

Kelly Frances Huedepohl khuedepohl@keatingjones.com, rensley@keatingjones.com 

Mark G. Passannante markpassannante@msn.com 

Peter D. Eidenberg peidenberg@keatingjones.com, dmiller@keatingjones.com 

Case 3:14-cv-00921-MO Document 59 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAI, OFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 
gasted by you open mwamrm *nacted for the publlo safety. 

hrt:cle 46212, hevised Clvii Statutea, prov23es that every 

r6tale under 21 years 0r see *ho abail mnrry shall thureaftor 

be deemed to be Of tuil age. ‘8.0 might Just aa wall my that 

a girl I.5 yeare car age wto shrvld lcarry could legally drive 

a uohool bus aa to say tbat a boy under 21 who baa bud his 

~dlssbilftlee ratuvod could do 80. It nobaeoery *a would illcntion that aetd senate BIU aa. 16, Chaptor 460, wea snaated 

long rubaequent to the emotmnt of hrtioiaa 5921 to 8925. 

our unawer to your westion is in the negative. 

Yours very truly 

ByLA'=k/-!- 

Glenn Li. l.owis 

AssIstant 

lW.:pJ
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

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

JAMES E. ROSS, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:14-cv-00113-JAD-CWH

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

)

LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Summons (#17), filed

February 25, 2014. This is Plaintiff’s third independent request for service of the summons and

complaint in this matter. Each prior request has been denied without prejudice pending the filing and

screening of a sufficient complaint. See Order (#9) and (#14). As noted before, Plaintiff’s request is

premature until such time as the Court screens the second amended complaint and determines Plaintiff

has sufficiently pled a plausible cause of action. Upon screening, and assuming Plaintiff has set forth a

plausible cause of action, the Court will address service. Until such time as the complaint is screened

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court will not order service. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Summons (#17) is denied

without prejudice.

DATED: February 28, 2014. 

 

___________________________________

C.W. Hoffman, Jr.

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 6:14-cv-01235-TC Document 19 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 1