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

No. 03-12499

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 7, 2006.

Kathleen M. Salyer, Anne R. Schultz, Nathaniel Mendell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael F. Amezaga, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM:

This case is on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *Laterza v. United States,*543 U.S. 1106, *822125 S.Ct. 1006, 160 L.Ed.2d 1024 (Mem.) (2005). In our previous decision, *United States v. Laterza,*No. 03-12499, 99 Fed. Appx. 886 (11th Cir. March 17, 2004) (unpublished opinion), which the Supreme Court has vacated, we affirmed the 60 months prison sentence appellant received for manufacturing more than 100 marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Appellant now contends that *Booker*requires that we vacate his sentence and remand the case for resentencing because the district court sentenced him pursuant to the mandatory guidelines sentencing scheme based on facts neither admitted by him nor found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

We reject appellant’s contention. First, appellant did not raise it in his initial brief on appeal, and his failure is fatal. *See, e.g., United States v. Ardley,*242 F.3d 989 (11th Cir.2001). Second, and alternatively, the district court did not commit a *Booker*error at all. The court sentenced appellant to the mandatory minimum sentence required by law — 60 months imprisonment — because the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant’s offense involved more than 100 marijuana plants. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).1

We have considered this appeal in light of *United States v. Booker,*and find no basis for disturbing our previous decision. That decision is therefore reinstated.2

SO ORDERED.

1

. Appellant did not qualify for the “safety-valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. *United States v. Laterza,*at 6-7.

2

. All outstanding motions are denied as MOOT in light of the court's ruling.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. RP01-333-001 and RP01-380-001]

      ( print page 29110)    
Take notice that on May 16, 2001, Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company (Tuscarora) tendered for filing for as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following substitute tariff sheets, to become effective May 18, 2001:

Sub Second Revised Sheet No. 66

Sub Original Sheet No. 66A

Tuscarora states that the purpose of this filing is to incorporate into its currently effective tariff certain tariff provisions previously accepted by the Commission but inadvertently superseded by a subsequent, unrelated tariff filing.

Tuscarora states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all parties listed on the official service listed prepared by the Secretary in these proceedings.

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                

                    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-13360  Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Baron Energy Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lisa P. Hamilton,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
17th day of March 2010.


/s/ Lisa P. Hamilton
----------------------------------------------------
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Debra H., Appellant, v Janice R., Respondent.

Submitted January 19, 2010;

decided February 11, 2010

*737Motion by Family Watch International for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2191 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from denying a veteran benefits 

administered by the Secretary by reason of the veteran participating 

in a State-approved marijuana program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2019 

Mr. STEUBE (for himself and Mr. CISNEROS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from denying 

a veteran benefits administered by the Secretary by reason of the veteran participating in a State-approved 

marijuana program, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Cannabis Use 

5 for Safe Healing Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2191 IH

1 SEC. 2. VETERAN PARTICIPATION IN STATE-APPROVED 

2 MARIJUANA PROGRAMS. 

3 (a) PROVISION OF BENEFITS.—Notwithstanding any 

4 other provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

5 may not deny a veteran any benefit under the laws admin6 istered by the Secretary by reason of the veteran partici7 pating in a State-approved marijuana program. 

8 (b) CONSULTATION.—With respect to a veteran who 

9 is enrolled in the system of patient enrollment under sec10 tion 1705 of title 38, United States Code, and participates 

11 in a State-approved marijuana program, the Secretary 

12 shall ensure that physicians and other health care pro13 viders of the Veterans Health Administration— 

14 (1) discuss marijuana use with the veteran and 

15 adjust medical treatment plans accordingly; and 

16 (2) record such use in the medical records of 

17 the veteran. 

18 (c) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—Notwithstanding 

19 any other provision of law, the Secretary shall authorize 

20 physicians and other health care providers of the Veterans 

21 Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Af22 fairs to— 

23 (1) provide recommendations and opinions to 

24 veterans who are residents of States with State-ap25 proved marijuana programs regarding the participa26 tion of veterans in such programs; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2191 IH

1 (2) complete forms reflecting such recommenda2 tions and opinions. 

3 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 (1) The term ‘‘marijuana’’ has the meaning 

5 given the term ‘‘marihuana’’ in section 102 of the 

6 Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802). 

7 (2) The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning given 

8 that term in section 101 of title 38, United States 

9 Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osprey Ventures,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Periodic Report), I, James Yiu Yeung Lung, 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.



Date: October 13, 2009

/s/     
James Yiu Yeung Lung

James Yiu Yeung Lung Chief
Financial Officer

---
#### In the Matter of Joseph D. Raymond, Sr., Appellant, v Kevin E. Walsh, Sheriff, County of Onondaga, et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 7, 2009;

decided March 25, 2010

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13773]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act

    Notice is hereby given that on May 14, 2001, a proposed consent 
decree in United States v. A&S Tribal Industries, Civil Action No. CV-
01-96M-DWM, was lodged with the United States District Court for the 
District of Montana.
    In this action, the United States sought injunctive relief and the 
payment of civil penalties for A&S Tribal Industries' alleged 
violations of the hazardous waste generator and treatment, storage and 
disposal requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(``RCRA'', and the pretreatment requirements of the Clean Water Act, at 
its facility located near Poplar, Montana. Under the proposed decree, 
the defendant A&S Tribal Industries will pay the sum of $40,000 over a 
three year period. The settlement sum is based upon the financial 
inability of A&S Tribal Industries to pay more. The proposed decree 
also requires that A&S Tribal Industries take specified injunctive 
measures to prevent RCRA generator and waste storage violations in the 
future and to perform initial sampling at facility locations where 
hazardous waste releases have occurred. The proposed decree also 
requires that A&S Tribal Industries install, operate and maintain 
pretreatment equipment necessary to achieve applicable discharge 
limits.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United 
States. v. A&S Tribal Industries, D.J. Ref. 90-7-1-06092.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, 2929 3rd Avenue North, Suite 400, Billings, 
Montana 59103; and at U.S. EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained 
by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 
20044. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of 
$12.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent 
Decree Library.

Robert D. Brook,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 01-13773 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### STATE v. JOHNSON

No. 339P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 152

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 October 1998.
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Cinnabar Ventures Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephanie Wood, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of January, 2009.


/s/ Stephanie Wood
-----------------------------------
Principal Financial Officer
32.1
            CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350.




I, Chet
Gutowsky, the Chief Executive Officer of Southfield Energy Corporation, hereby
certify that to my knowledge, Southfield Energy Corporation’s quarterly report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-Q and the
financial statements contained therein fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of Southfield
Energy Corporation.




Date:
August 20, 2010




/s/
      Chet GutowskyChet
      Gutowsky
#### UNITED STATES *v.*KIRBY LUMBER CO

No. 26.

Argued October 21, 1931.

Decided November 2, 1931.

*Assistant Attorney General Rugg,*with whom *Solicitor General Thacher*and *Messrs. Fred K. Dyar, Bradley B. Gilman, Erwin N. Griswold, Paul D. Miller, Clarence M. Cbarest,*and *T. H. Lewis, Jr.,*were on the brief, for the United States.

*Mr. Robert Ash*for respondent.

*2Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In July, 1923, the plaintiff, the Kirby Lumber Company, issued its own bonds for $1-2,126,800 for which it received their par value. Later in the same year it purchased in the open market some of the same bonds at less than par, the difference of price being $137,521.30. The. question is whether this difference is a taxable gain or income of the plaintiff for the year 1923, By the Rev*3enue Act of (November 23,) 1921, c. 136, § 213 (a) gross income includes, *“*gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever,” and by the Treasury Regulations authorized, by § 1303, that have been in force through repeated reenactments, “ If the corporation purchases and retires any of such bonds at a price less than the issuing price or face value, the excess of the issuing price or face value over the purchase price is. gain or income for the taxable year.” Article 545 (1) (c) of Regulations 62, under Revenue Act of 1921. See Article 544 (1) (c) of Regulations 45, under Revenue Act of 1918; .Article 545 (1) (c) of Regulations 65, under Revenue Act of 1924; Article 545 (1) (c) of Regulations 69, under Revenue Act of 1926; Article 68 (1) (c) of Regulations 74, under Revenue Act of 1928. We see no reason why the Regulations should not be accepted as a correct statement of the law.

In *Bowers*v. *Kerbaugh-Empire Co.,*271 U. S. 170, the defendant in error owned the stock of another company that had borrowed money repayable in marks or their equivalent for an enterprise that failed. At the time of payment the marks had fallen in value, which so.far as it went was a gain for the defendant in error, and it was contended by the plaintiff in error that the gain was taxable income. But the transaction as a whole was a loss, and the contention ■ was denied. Here there was no shrinkage of assets and the taxpayer made a clear gain. As a result of its dealings it made available $137,521.30 assets previously offset by the obligation of bonds now extinct. We see nothing to be gained by the discussion of judicial definitions. The defendant in error has realized within the year an accession to income,-if we take words in their plain popular, meaning, as they should be -taken here. *Burnet*v. *Sanford & Brooks Co.,*282 U. S. 359, 364.

*Judgment reversed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         509,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,365,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   658,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,989,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,408,000
<PP&E>                                       4,970,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,190,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,742,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       32,193,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    30,757,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (27,489,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,742,000
<SALES>                                     60,427,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            60,427,000
<CGS>                                       29,383,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,383,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,300,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,872,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,658,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (25,326,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,663,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (28,715,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (28,715,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.46)
        

</TABLE>
#### Jeanette WOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-5083.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 15, 2006.

Richmond J. Brownson, Timothy Morris White, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David E. O’Meilia, U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Wyn Dee Baker, United States Attorney, Tulsa, OK, Amy Jeanine Mitchell, Tina M. Waddell, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Joanna Tate, Dallas, TX, for Defendani>-Appellee.

Before LUCERO, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

DAVID M. EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Jeanette Wood appeals the district court’s denial of an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). In *McGraw v. Barnhart,*450 F.3d 493 (10th Cir.2006), this court held that § 406(b)(1) allows an award of fees when the district court has remanded a Title II Social Security case for further proceedings. Thus, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in light of *McGraw.*Appellant’s motion to file an addendum of recent citations is GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to accept the addendum for filing as of the date of original receipt.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.