alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL
- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0413n.06
No. 14

- 4158 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. OLUFEMI YOUNG , Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: GUY, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Olufemi Young, a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his term of supervised release. Young entered a guilty plea in 2001 in the Western District of Pennsylvania to charges of carrying a firearm in relation to a drug

- trafficking crime and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to 157 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. His supervised release term commenced in December 2011. Beginning in March 2013, Young repeatedly tested positive for marijuana. He admitted that his drug use violated the terms of his supervised release. A sentencing hearing was held in November 2014. The guidelines range for the violation was calculated at six to twelve months of imprisonment. The government argued for a sentence within the range. Young argued that he had successfully started his own business and asked to be allowed to continue his final month of supervised release. The district courtNo. 14

- 4158

United States v. Young

- 2

- discussed t he seriousness of the violation and the needs to promote respect for the law, to punish, and for deterrence in imposing a term of imprisonment of twelve months with no additional supervised release to foll ow. Young now argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He states that he required drug treatment rather than incarceration. We review a sentence imposed on the revocation of supervised release for reasonableness under an abuse

- of

- discreti on standard. United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 575 (6th Cir. 2007). A sentence within the guidelines range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness. United States v. Trejo

- Martinez , 481 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2007); Uni ted
States v. Morris , 448 F.3d 929, 932 (6th Cir. 2006). Young presents nothing that indicates an abuse of discretion by the district court or rebuts the presumption of reasonableness of his within

- guidelines sentence. He was given the opportunity to comp lete drug treatment on supervised release and squandered that opportunity. Young’s wish for a more lenient sentence is insufficient to disturb the district court’s judgment. See Trejo

- Martinez , 481 F.3d at 413. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence impose d below.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 832 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 832

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the financing of 
                             the Superfund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2009

 Mr. Pallone (for himself and Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the financing of 
                             the Superfund.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Superfund Polluter Pays Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SUPERFUND TAXES.

    (a) Excise Taxes.--Section 4611(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Application of Hazardous Substance Superfund Financing 
Rate.--The Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate under this 
section shall apply after December 31, 1986, and before January 1, 
1996, and after the date of the enactment of this subsection and before 
January 1, 2019.''.
    (b) Corporate Environmental Income Tax.--Section 59A(e) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Application of Tax.--The tax imposed by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, and before 
January 1, 1996, and to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this subsection and before January 1, 2019.''.
    (c) Technical Amendments.--
            (1) Section 4611(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
        amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or exported from'' in paragraph 
                (1)(A),
                    (B) by striking ``or exportation'' in paragraph 
                (1)(B), and
                    (C) by striking ``and Exportation'' in the heading.
            (2) Section 4611(d)(3) of such Code is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or exporting the crude oil, as 
                the case may be'' in the text and inserting ``the crude 
                oil'', and
                    (B) by striking ``or exports'' in the heading.
    (d) Effective Dates.--
            (1) Excise taxes.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
        and (c) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
        Act.
            (2) Income tax.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall 
        apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY>   U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1.000
<CASH>                        92,623
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 663,623
<ALLOWANCES>                  90,000
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              918,280
<PP&E>                        1,038,228
<DEPRECIATION>                927,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,455,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,036,752
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      133,752
<OTHER-SE>                    184,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,455,052
<SALES>                       3,789,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              3,789,864
<CGS>                         814,035
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2,733,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            53,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>               188,838
<INCOME-TAX>                  700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           188,138
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  188,138
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .05
        


</TABLE>
Clear All

        13 October 2023    

                    From Daughter to Shipmate                  
                As the Navy celebrates its 248th birthday this year, it allows Naval Air Force Atlantic (AIRLANT) to highlight the Sailors who serve in Naval Aviation.  For the first time in his naval career, AIRLANT’s Force Master Chief Jimmy W. Hailey III, has served on the same coast as his daughter,            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT

Teri Lisa Rubio
, * From the 318th District Court of Midland County, Trial Court No. FM

- 50,673

.
Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00189

- CV * July 30, 2015
Robert Earl Klein, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )
This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Teri Lisa Rubio

.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11747]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting:  Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 12 noon, Monday, May 14, 2001.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: 1. Proposals regarding a Federal Reserve 
Bank's building program.
    2. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    3. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to 
the Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: May 4, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-11747 Filed 5-4-01; 4:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Case 1:07-cv-05779-RJH Document 10 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05779-RJH Document 10 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05779-RJH Document 10 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 3 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 4 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 5 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 6 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 7 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 8 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 9 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 10 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 11 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 12 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 13 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 14 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 15 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 16 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 17 of 17
#### GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. AMERICAN BRASS & COPPER CO.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

August 9, 1911.)

1. Patents (§ 310*)—Suit for Infringement—Pleading.

Under the practice in the Second Circuit, complainant in a suit for infringement may declare on the patent generally and postpone the statement of the particular claims relied on until the taking of the testimony-begins.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. §§ 507-540; Dec. Dig. § 310.*]

2. Patents (§ 328*)—Validity—Infringement.

The Sargent patent, No. 665,582, for a lamp socket, *held*valid and infringed on motion for preliminary injunction.

This cause comes before the court upon a demurrer to the bill- and also on motion for preliminary injunction.

Samuel Owen Edmonds, of New York City, for complainant.

Arthur P. Greeley, of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

*

For other eases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to Sate, & Rep’r Indexes

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

[1] The suit is for infringement of letters patent 665,582 and 751,029, and the only ground of demurrer submitted is that the bill does not state which of the claims of the two patents sued upon are alleged to be infringed. Defendant relies upon Eastwood v. Cutter-Hammer Company (C. C.) 148 Fed. 718.

Whatever may be the rule elsewhere, it is well settled practice in this circuit to declare upon a patent and to postpone the statement of the particular claims alleged to be infringed until the taking of the testimony begins. We see no reason to change this practice. The liberality with which applications to amend answers are treated, after the taking of complainant’s prima facie proofs indicates his contentions, secures defendant every facility to interpose and maintain his defenses.

[2] As to the motion for preliminary injunction on patent 665,582: This patent has been adjudicated at final'hearing in the district of New Jersey and the few additional patents introduced here do not add anything material to the statement of the prior art which was before Judge Cross. His decision as to the validity of the patent and the scope of claim II (the only one relied upon on this motion) will, therefore, be followed. No functional difference is apparent between the “projection” of the patent and the “groove” of defendant’s structure, as a means for securing the insulating lining in place.

The failure to move against defendant while complainant was seeking to maintain the validity of his patent and to have its claims construed in the New Jersey suit , cannot be charged against it as laches.

Motion for preliminary injunction is granted.
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 10 to the 1933 Act
      Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-193274) and Amendment No. 724 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under
      individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 3, 2019
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23

- 0575

_________________ RIKKI HELD; LANDER B., by and through his guardian Sara Busse; BADGE B., by and through his guardian Sara Busse; SARIEL SANDOVAL; KIAN T., by and th rough his guardian Todd Tanner; GEORGIANNA FISCHER; KATHRYN GRACE GIBSON

- SNYDER; EVA L., by and through her guardian Mark Lighthiser; MIKA K., by and through his guardian Rachel Kantor; OLIVIA VESOVICH; JEFFREY K., by

and through his guardian Laura King; NATHANIEL K., by

and through hi s guardian Laura King; CLAIRE VLASES; RUBY D., by and th rough her guardian Shane Doyle; LILIAN D., by and through her guardian Shane Doyle; TALEAH HERNÁNDEZ,

Plaint iffs and Appellees,

v. STATE OF MONTANA, GOVERNOR GREG GIANF ORTE, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, and MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendants and Appellants. O R D E R

_________________ 

### Byron L. Trackwell has filed a motion to file an amicus brief. T rackwell has attached a proposed amicus brief to his motion. G ood cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED . The Clerk is directed to file the brief attached to the motion.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 22 2023

11/22/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0575
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER 

SITE LITIGATION 

 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 

JAN JOZEFOWICZ, 07-CV-05298 (AKH) 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

-againstNOTICE OF DEFENDANT VERIZON 

NEW YORK INC.’S ADOPTION OF 

ANSWER TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

VERIZON NEW YORK INC., 

et al.

 

 

Defendants. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Verizon New York Inc. (“Verizon”) 

hereby adopts as its Answer in the instant case its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint which 

was filed and served on October 16, 2007 in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). In accordance with Case Management 

Order No. 4, the allegations of the instant Check-Off Complaint are deemed to be denied. 

Verizon also incorporates by reference all averments and denials of its Answer to Plaintiffs’ 

Master Complaint as though same were more fully set forth herein at length. Verizon further 

adopts the responses contained in any Amended Answer filed and served herein. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Verizon reserves the right to file and 

serve an amended answer and specifically reserves the right to interpose cross-claims and thirdparty claims. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against Verizon, together with its cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-05298-AKH Document 10 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 1 of 2
 2 

Dated: November 26, 2007 /s/ Eric F. Leon 

Eric F. Leon 

Lee Ann Stevenson 

Andrew Dunlap 

Michael D. Reisman 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

Citigroup Center 

153 East 53rd Street 

New York, New York 10022-4611 

Telephone: (212) 446-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 

Attorneys for Defendant Verizon New York Inc.

TO: Christopher LoPalo, Esq. 

WORBY GRONER EDELMAN & NAPOLI BERN, LLP 

115 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, New York 10006 

 Robert A. Grochow, Esq. 

ROBERT A. GROCHOW, P.C. 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

 Gregory J. Cannata, Esq. 

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. CANNATA 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 Marc D. Weinblatt, Esq. 

SANDERS, SANDERS, BLOCK, WOYICK, VIENER & GROSSMAN, P.C. 

100 Herricks Road 

Mineola, New York 11501 

 David Kremen, Esq. 

OSHMAN & MIRISOLA, LLP 

42 Broadway, 10th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

 

All Defense Counsel (via ECF)

Case 1:07-cv-05298-AKH Document 10 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
Clear All

        18 August 2023    

                    U.S. Navy Riverine Vietnam Veteran Posthumously Awarded Bronze Star with Valor                 
                Virginia Beach, Va. The Navy posthumously recognized Lt. j.g. William Collins, a Vietnam War veteran and former officer-in-charge of a swift boat, during a ceremony today onboard Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story. Collins’ wife Estella and his family accepted the award on his            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ibrahima SARR, a/k/a Ibu, a/k/a Abou, a/k/a Abou Sall, a/k/a Abou Diop, a/k/a Mousa Fall, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6246.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 29, 2013.

Ibrahima Sarr, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ibrahima Sarr appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Sarr,*No. 2:06-cr-00056-RBS-FBS-1 (E.D.Va. filed Jan. 30, 2013; *230entered Jan. 31, 2013). 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.*
Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 18.a


     February 3, 2000




     Huffy Corporation
     Miamisburg, Ohio


     Ladies and Gentlemen:


     We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Huffy Corporation and
     subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
     statements of operations, shareholder's equity and cash flows for each of
     the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, and have
     reported thereon under date of February 3, 2000. The aforementioned
     consolidated financial statements and our audit report thereon are
     incorporated by reference in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for
     the year ended December 31, 1999. As stated in Notes 1 and 5 to those
     financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for
     inventory from the last-in first-out (LIFO) method to the first-in
     first-out (FIFO) method and states that the newly adopted accounting
     principle is preferable in the circumstances because of FIFO being a better
     measurement of operating results given the current economic environment of
     deflation. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed
     with Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning
     upon which the decision to make this change in the method of accounting was
     based.

     With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria
     have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one
     acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method. However,
     for purposes of Huffy Corporation's compliance with the requirements of the
     Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

     Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's business
     judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of
     accounting is preferable in the Company's circumstances.



     Very truly yours,





     KPMG LLP
Case 1:07-cv-05738-PKC-AJP Document 11 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 1 of 1