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

No. 09-40787

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Samuel Ucles has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Ucles has filed a response. With respect to Ucles’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). With respect to Ucles’s remaining claims, our independent review of the record, the response, and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15267]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1370-DR]


Minnesota; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Minnesota, (FEMA-1370-DR), dated May 16, 2001, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3772.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 16, 2001:

    Clearwater, Crow Wing, and Roseau for Public Assistance.
    Anoka, Beltrami, Clearwater, Hennepin, Koochiching Counties and 
Red Lake Indian Reservation and White Earth Indian Reservation for 
Individual Assistance.
    Brown, Carver, Chisago, Douglas, Grant, Kittson, Nicollet, Red 
Lake and Scott Counties for Individual Assistance (already 
designated for Public Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 01-15267 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-28-2000
<CASH>                                             470
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      830
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,207
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,510
<PP&E>                                          16,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,810
<BONDS>                                          6,448
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,389
<SALES>                                         82,371
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,371
<CGS>                                           74,821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,046
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,310)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,970
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,340)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (108)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,448)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.96)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randy Butler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:  May 16, 2011
By: /s/ Randy ButlerRandy ButlerChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000869801
<NAME> GEODYNE INSTITUTIONAL/PENSION ENERGY INCOME P-6 LIMITED PART
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         354,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  287,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               641,951
<PP&E>                                      12,187,639
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,600,492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,229,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,229,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,229,098
<SALES>                                      1,386,099
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,429,810
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,513,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (83,799)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (83,799)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (83,799)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99(b)







FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - October 12, 2000

CONTACT:       Linda A. Pleiman
               Director - Investor Relations & Corporate
Communications
               lpleiman@nsgrouponline.com


        NS GROUP COMPLETES SALE OF IMPERIAL ADHESIVES


(Newport, Kentucky - October 12, 2000) Newport, Kentucky
based NS Group  announced today that it has completed the
sale of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Imperial Adhesives,
Inc. to Sovereign Specialty Chemicals, Inc.  The transaction
price was for cash of $26.75 million.

Mr. Rene J. Robichaud, President and CEO of NS Group, Inc.,
stated, "This is a real win-win situation for NS Group and
Imperial.  It is a good deal for NS Group shareholders and
we're very happy to place Imperial in a sound growth
environment with Sovereign.  We intend to begin the process
of paying down approximately $25 million of our outstanding
$74.7 million 13 1/2% senior secured notes, which will result
in over $3.3 million in annual interest expense savings."

Imperial Adhesives was purchased by NS Group in 1985 and
represented approximately 10 percent of its net sales.

NS Group is a leading producer of tubular products serving
the energy industry and certain industrial markets.  The
company manufactures seamless and welded tubular steel
products which are used in the drilling and transmission of
oil and natural gas.  NS Group's industrial products include
special bar quality (SBQ) products used in critical weight
bearing applications.  Log on to www.nsgrouponline.com to
learn more about NS Group.

Sovereign Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a leading developer,
marketer and distributor of high-performance specialty
adhesives, sealants and coatings utilized in a variety of
industrial and commercial applications.  Headquartered in
Chicago, Sovereign was founded by Robert Covalt and a group
of private investors in 1996.  Sovereign has grown
organically and through acquisitions, becoming one of the
premier companies in its field.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aracelis LLANOS, a.k.a. Yvonne Rodriguez, a.k.a. Sally, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-15390

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 17, 2010.

*857Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Harriett R. Galvin, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bait Thomas Heffernan, Law Offices of Bart T. Heffernan, P.A., Oakland Park, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Aracelis Llanos appeals her 18-month downward variance sentence imposed following her guilty plea to making false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims on tax returns, 18 U.S.C. § 287. Llanos asserts the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence because two other defendants — Providencia Llanos and Caprice Battle — received only house arrest and probation instead of a custodial sentence. She argues the district court did not comply with § 3553(a)(6), which indicates one factor the court must consider is the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. After review, we affirm Llanos’s sentence.1

In proving a court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence, the party challenging that sentence “bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both that record and the factors in section 3553(a).” *United States v. Talley,*431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005). Though sentences within the Guidelines are not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, the Guidelines are considered to be “central to the sentencing process” and the imposition of a sentence within the Guidelines is ordinarily expected to be reasonable. *Id.*at 787-88.

Specifically, § 3553(a)(6) “addresses unwarranted sentence disparities among federal defendants who are similarly situated.... ” *United States v. Docampo,*573 F.3d 1091, 1102 (11th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2342, 176 L.Ed.2d 564 (2010). Prior to the Supreme Court’s holding the Guidelines were advisory in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we held “[disparity between the sentences imposed on codefendants is generally not an appropriate basis for relief on appeal.” *858*United States v. Regueiro,*240 F.3d 1321, 1325-26 (11th Cir.2001).2

The district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. Llanos was responsible for a greater loss amount than Providencia or Battle. She also shoplifted three days after pleading guilty and lied about it to her probation officer. Under those circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a custodial sentence because her situation was different and a different sentence was warranted. Thus, we affirm Llanos’ sentence.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Hunt,*526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir.2008).

2

. In this case, the parties are not strictly codefendants. Although the parties appear to have committed similar conduct under a similar set of facts, their cases were separate.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Proposed Rulemaking Q & A – Conflicts of Interest for Swap Dealers, Major 

Swap Participants, Futures Commission Merchants, and Introducing Brokers 

What is the goal of the proposed rulemaking? 

Sections 731 and 732 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) 

amend the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by directing swap dealers, major swap participants, futures 

commission merchants, and introducing brokers to implement certain conflicts of interest systems and procedures 

that establish safeguards within the firm. The goal of the proposed rulemaking is to promulgate the requirements 

for such conflicts of interest systems and procedures. 

What registrants are covered by the proposed regulations? 

The proposed regulations will apply to swap dealers, major swap participants, futures commission merchants, and 

introducing brokers. 

By when must comments on the rules be submitted? 

Comments on the rules must be submitted within sixty (60) days of the publication of the proposal in the Federal 

Register. 

Do the proposed rules require informational partitions surrounding any person who engages in 

“research or analysis of the price or market,” regardless of whether such research or analysis is 

to be made part of a research report that may be publicly disseminated? 

No. The Commission believes that sections 731 and 732 with respect to “research or analysis of the price or 

market” primarily are intended to prevent persons involved in pricing, trading or clearing activities from exercising 

undue influence on the substance of research reports that may be publicly disseminated. 

If an entity is dually registered as a swap dealer or major swap participant, and as a futures 

commission merchant, will the requirements for establishing informational partitions between 

business trading units and clearing units still apply, even though the units reside within the same 

entity? 

Yes. The proposed regulations are intended to apply not only to situations in which a swap dealer or major swap 

participant is affiliated with a futures commission merchant, but also to a situation in which an entity is dually 

registered both as a swap dealer or major swap participant and as a futures commission merchant. Such dual 

registrants will be required to establish informational partitions between business trading units and clearing units 

located within the same entity. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      We have issued our report dated March 16, 2001 (except for note 15, as to
which the date is April 4, 2001) accompanying the consolidated financial
statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Paper Warehouse,
Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the years ended February 2, 2001
and January 28, 2000. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
of said report in the Registration Statements of Paper Warehouse, Inc. and
Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (No. 333-36064, No. 333-36066, No. 333-43358)
and Form S-3 (No. 333-44944).

                                                          /s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 23, 2001
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
General Magic, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-12667) on Form S-8 of General Magic, Inc. of our report dated February 7,
1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of General Magic, Inc. (a
development stage enterprise) and subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
(deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1996, and for the period from May 1, 1990 (inception) to December
31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996, annual report on Form
10-K of General Magic, Inc.



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick


San Jose, California
March 26, 1997
No. 388.

#### Triplett et al. *v.*Lowell et al.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Samuel E. Darby, Jr.,*for petitioners.

*Messrs. C. V. Edwards*and *John B. Brady*for respondents.

See *ante,*p. 570.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Honorab:Le D. Richard Voges 

county Attorney 

Floresville, Texas 

Dear sir: 

Opinion No. O-3679 

Re: Commissions which may be paid to a delinquent 

tax collector attorney for an independent 

school district. 

In your letter of June 10, 1941, you request our opinion as to whether an 

independent school district may legally pay to a delinquent tax collector 

attorne~y a compCnsation exceeding fifteen (1%) per cent of the amount 

collected. 

Applica'ble statutes are Articles 7343 and 7335, Revised Civil Statutes, and 

Article 7335a, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. Since your question has 

been definitely decided by the Supreme Court, we deem it unnecessary to 

set out such statutes or to give any discussion to the same. In the case 

of Bell V. Mansfield Independent School District, I.29 S. W. (2d) 629, the 

Supreme Court had before it for decision the validity of a contract made 

by an independent school district in which the compensation provided to 

be paid such a collector was twenty (2@) par cent of the amount collected. 

From the opinion written by Judge Hicknan we quote: 

"* * * Our conclusion is that at the time the contract in suit was 

executed the pex%$es lawfully could have stipulated for compansation 

not to exceed fiiceen per cent of the amount collected. 

"We are unable to adopt the theory upm~which it is claimed that the 

contract for twenty per cent of the amount collected is valid. As 

above pointed out, the spesific language of Article 7343 governs the 

character of contract which the par#$~es could make. That 1anguEge 

limits the compensation to that proi;i3ed by law in suits for state 

and county taxes. That amount is limited to fifteen per cants of the 

alLount collected and there is no authority in law for the payment of 

a greater percentage. The contract under review provide8 for the 

payment of twenty per cent. It is, for that reason, void. Art. 

73358 11 f?.” 
Hon. D. Richard Voges, Page 2 (O-3679) 

Our likptive answer to your question follows. 

YOWS very truly, 

ATPOIUQX WLOFTEXAS 

s/ Glenn R. I,s$is 

BY 

Glenn X. L8wis 

Assistant 

GRL:ej 

APPROVED J-UN. 18, 1941 

s/ GROVER SELLER3 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATl!ORiES QXERAL 

APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY B. F;'. B. 

CHAma
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1743

ISAAC D. POLING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (CA-00-40-1)

Submitted: December 28, 2001 Decided: January 24, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Susan Kipp McLaughlin, MCLAUGHLIN & CURRY, Fairmont, West Virginia,

for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III,

Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Kelly C. Connelly, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Patrick M.

Flatley, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Isaac D. Poling appeals from the district court’s order upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny

Poling’s application for disability insurance benefits. We have

reviewed the record, the briefs, and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Poling v. Massanari, No. CA-00-40-1 (N.D.W. Va.

Mar. 29, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED