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

No. 07-11204

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 11, 2008.

Amanda R. Burch, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sheri Elizabeth Bell pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement to one count of health care fraud and was sentenced to serve 51 months in prison. Bell appeals *344her sentence. She argues that the district court’s loss calculation is incorrect and that both the loss amount and her base offense level should be reduced.

Under the discretionary sentencing system established by *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), district courts retain the duty to properly calculate and consider the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, along with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), when fashioning a sentence. *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.2005). When reviewing a sentence, we consider whether the district court committed significant procedural error and whether the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district coui’t’s sentencing decision is ultimately reviewed for an abuse of discretion. *Id.', see also United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 564 (5th Cm.), *petition for cert. filed,*(July 2, 2008) (No. 08-5226).

Bell has shown no significant procedural error in connection with her sentence. *See Gall,*128 S.Ct. at 597. The district court’s findings concerning the amount of loss are plausible when considered in view of the record as a whole and thus are not clearly erroneous. *See United States v. Janes,*475 F.3d 701, 705 (5th Cir.2007); *United States v. Caldwell,*448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir.2006). The district court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Bell. *See Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d at 564. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *344the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement No. 333-55831 on Form S-4 and inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-10429 and 333-48143 on Form S-8of our report dated January 26, 2007, which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to a changein accounting for share-based payment arrangements, appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Westaff, Inc. and subsidiaries for theyear ended October 28, 2006.
| /s/ DELOITTE &  TOUCHE LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Oakland, California                 |
| January 26, 2007               |

 

----
##### 



March 30, 2005  Stillwater Mining Company
Billings, Montana Ladies and Gentlemen: We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Stillwater Mining Company and subsidiary (the
Company) as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations
and comprehensive income (loss), changes in stockholders equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and have reported thereon under date of
March 30, 2005. The aforementioned consolidated financial statements and our audit report thereon
are included in the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. As
stated in Note 3 to those financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for
amortization of mine development costs and states that the newly adopted accounting principle is
preferable in the circumstances because the new method of amortizing mine development costs more
closely reflects the economics of accessing and extracting specific ore reserves. The new method
distributes the costs to the ore produced as equitably as possible in a systematic and rational
manner. 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 the company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,/s/ KPMG LLP
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley Leon WADDELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7202.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

Stanley Leon Waddell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Leon Waddell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Waddell 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 *253and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-70876, 333-63620 and 333-37808) and S-8 (No. 333-63618, 33-90396,
333-10167, 333-89223, 333-52136, 333-37832 and 333-105862) of Micrel,
Incorporated of our report dated February 27, 2008 relating to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting which appears in this
Form 10-K.




/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


San Jose,
California


February
27, 2008
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of  International Industrial Enterprises for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:  (1)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of International Industrial Enterprises for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of International Industrial Enterprises.  By:/s/ David RogersName:David RogersTitle:Principal Executive Officer,
and DirectorDate:August 4, 2009By:/s/ David RogersName:David RogersTitle:Principal Financial OfficerDate:August 4, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7445

RAHEEM CHABEZZ JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JEFFREY KISER, Warden, Red Onion State Prison,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00488-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: July 26, 2023 Decided: August 3, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Engle, DONOVAN & ENGLE, PLLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7445 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Raheem Chabezz Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7445 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
No. 31.

#### Santovincenzo, Consul of the Kingdom of Italy at New York, *v.*Egan, Public Administrator, et al.

Jurisdictional statement submitted April 20, 1931.

Decided November 23, 1931.

*Per Curiam:*

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, § 237 (a), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was .allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari as required by § 237 (c), Judicial Code, as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is granted. For opinion in this case, see *ante,*p. 30.
H. Res. 1109 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 25, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

3961) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reform the Medicare SGR payment system for physicians and 

to reinstitute and update the Pay-As-You-Go requirement of 

budget neutrality on new tax and mandatory spending legislation, enforced by the threat of annual, automatic sequestration, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in 

the House, without intervention of any point of order except 

those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a single motion 

offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary or his 

designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments. 

The Senate amendments shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on the Judiciary. The previous question shall be 
2 

•HRES 1109 EH 

considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without 

intervening motion or demand for division of the question. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Thomas C. Prendergast, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a15(e) and 15d-15(e) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for
the registrant, and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors;



|Date: March 10, 2005 |  | /s/THOMAS C. PRENDERGASTThomas C. Prendergast
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
               
     
     
     
                              
          June 19, 1997
     
     
     
     Gary Peiffer, Esq.
     319 Ardmore Road
     Hohokus, New Jersey  07423
     
     Re:  TERMINATION OF EXECUTIVE
               EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
     
     Dear Gary:
     
               This letter confirms the ter
     mination of the Amended and Restated
     Executive Employment Agreement (the
     "Agreement") dated as of April 1, 1997
     between Aegis Consumer Funding Group,
     Inc. (the "Company") and Gary Peiffer (the
     "Executive") and certain related matters
     effective as of the date of this letter.  For
     good and valuable consideration the receipt
     of which is acknowledged the Company
     and the Executive have agreed as follows:
     
     1.   Defined terms used but not other
               wise defined herein shall have the
               meaning ascribed to them in the
               Agreement.
     
     2.   The Agreement is terminated in all
               respects except for the continuing
               obligations of the Executive under
               Section 10 of the Agreement.  The
               Executive hereby confirms his vol
               untary resignation as an officer and
               director of the Company.
     
     3.   The amount of the Advance (as de
               fined in Section 4(b) of the Agree
               ment) which remains unpaid by the
               Executive to the Company is hereby
               cancelled and declared to be no lon
               ger due and owing by the Executive
               to the Company.  The Executive
               hereby releases and waives any and
               all claims he may have against the
               Company arising under or pursuant
               to the Agreement or any prior
               agreement relating to his employ
               ment with the Company, including
               but not limited to claims to receive
               severance or bonus payments or to
               exercise options to purchase shares
               of the Company's Common Stock.
     
     By executing and returning a copy of this
     letter please confirm the foregoing terms to
     be our agreement with respect to the mat
     ters set forth herein as of the date of this
     letter.
     
     AEGIS CONSUMER FUNDING
     GROUP,INC.
     
     
     
                              
          By:                                         
           
                              
               Joseph F. Battiato
                              
               President
     
     
     
     Accepted and agreed to this
        day of June, 1997 but as of 
     the date first above written.
     
     
     
                                    
       Gary Peiffer
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.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

The next meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for June 21, 2001 at 10:00 a.m., in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 441 F Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion affecting the appearance of Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials.

Draft agendas are available to the public one week prior to the meeting. Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

Dated: in Washington, DC, May 30, 2001.

Charles H. Atherton,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-14115  Filed 6-4-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2467 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce 

from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the Exclusive Economic Zone except in accordance with a law authorizing such 

action. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Mr. YOUNG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Commerce from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the Exclusive Economic Zone except 

in accordance with a law authorizing such action. 

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 ‘‘Keep Finfish Free Act 

5 of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2467 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AUTHORIZING FINFISH AQUA2 CULTURE IN THE EEZ. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither 

4 the Secretary of the Interior nor the Secretary of Com5 merce may issue any permit or in any other way authorize 

6 any person to conduct commercial finfish aquaculture op7 erations in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United 

8 States (as established by Proclamation Numbered 5030, 

9 dated March 10, 1983), except in accordance with a law 

10 authorizing such action that is enacted after the date of 

11 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 ofAventerra Explorations, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Patricia Traczykowski, Chief Executive Officer and 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    

Dated this 13thday of August, 2008.

PATRICIA TRACZYKOWSKIPatricia TraczykowskiChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer














---