alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 50205 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Shahied Summons,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:17

- CR

- 249

- 1

Before **Wiener, Dennis,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Shahied Summons, federal prisoner # 55633

- 060, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Summons argues that the district court improperly relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in violation of United States v. Shkambi , 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2 021).

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 13, 2022 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 21-50205 Document: 00516279408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2022No. 21

- 50205

2 He further contends that the district court failed to consider his post

sentencing rehabilitation or provide specific factual reasons for denying his motion. In addition, Summons moves this court for permission to file an out of time reply brief.
W e need not resolve whether the district court committed Shkambi error by treating the policy statement in § 1B1.13 as binding, see United States v. Cooper , 996 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 2021) ; Shkambi , 993 F.3d at 393, because the district court independently determined that compassionate release was not warranted based on its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors

. See Ward v. United States , 11 F.4th 354, 360

- 62 (5th Cir. 2021); cf. Cooper , 996 F.3 d at 288

- 89

. The district court stated that it had completely reviewed Summons’s motion, which advanced his rehabilitation argument, and then cited specific § 3553(a) factors as its basis for concluding that relief was not warranted. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693

- 94 (5th Cir. 2020); § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2). The district court was not required to specifically address each argument raised by Summons. See Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007); see also United States v. Chavez

- Mez a , 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018).
Because Summons has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s denial of his motion resulted from an “error of law or clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence,” the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Cham bliss , 948 F.3d at 693

– 94

. His motion to file an out of time reply brief is **GRANTED**

. Case: 21-50205 Document: 00516279408 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2022
2001 OK JUD ETH 7.

#### JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2001-7.

Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel.

June 6, 2001.

10 QUESTION 1: May a judge attend a fund raising event for a public university as a guest of a person who has purchased a table for the occasion?

1 WE ANSWER: YES.

T2 Canon 4C@B): "A judge may serve as an officer ... of an educational ... organization not conducted for profit, subject to the following limitations and the other requirements of this Code....

> b. A judge as an officer ... member or otherwise: or as a

> i. ... shall not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities....

> (iv) should not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or membership solicitation."

T3 Canon 2(B): "... A judge should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others...."

[ 4 Among ethics panels across the United States, the most commonly asked questions are those concerning a judge's involvement with charitable, educational or civic organizations. There is a strong consensus for strict interpretation of the eanon prohibiting fund solicitation. The consensus just as strongly supports the prohibition against any indirect fund-raising.

15 A judge may attend a fund-raising event for a non-profit, educational organization, but the judge must exercise caution and *274avoid participating in the fund-raising. The judge should not be the guest of honor, cannot be the principal speaker or one of several speakers, should not sign any letter of invitation to the event and should not be listed by title or position. While it is not mentioned in the question, we assume the person inviting the judge to the event is not a person who is likely to appear before the judge or be involved in a case before the judge.

T6 The Canon against use of the prestige of the judicial position to advance private interests seeks to avoid abuse of the office; it considers that potential donors may be intimidated to give when requested by a judge or may make a gift in the expectation of judicial favor in the future.

T7 A "fund-raiser" as considered in the Canons of Judicial Ethics is a function of a charitable or educational organization where donations are requested or expected. But it also should be noted that a function where the tickets are priced at an excessive amount, obviously far exceeding the costs of the function, should also be considered by a judge as a "fund-raiser."

8 In conclusion, we emphasize the limitations on a judge's activities involving charitable, educational, or civic organizations. The Canons are clear that a judge must not personally solicit funds nor allow the prestige of the office to be exploited for solicitation of funds. The judge may attend a fund-raising event for a non-profit educational institution as a guest of one who has purchased a table for the occasion.

9 Robert L. Bailey, Chairman

Robert A. Layden, Vice-Chairman

Milton C. Craig, Secretary
Consent of Independent Auditor








We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 of Silver Standard Resources Inc. (“Silver Standard”), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of our report dated February 19, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements, comprising the consolidated statements of financial position as at December 31, 2014, December 31, 2013 and January 1, 2013 and the consolidated statements of loss, comprehensive loss, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013; and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report.





We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-185498, 333-196116 and 333-198092) of Silver Standard of our report dated February 19, 2015 referred to above.








/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Chartered Accountants


Vancouver, British Columbia


March 24, 2015














PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 PricewaterhouseCoopers Place, 250 Howe Street, Suite 700, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 3S7
 T: +1 604 806 7000, F: +1 604 806 7806, www.pwc.com/ca
 
 “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,970
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                        75
<INVENTORY>                                      6,230
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,203
<PP&E>                                          27,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,175
<BONDS>                                         83,743
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,939
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,029
<SALES>                                         89,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,353
<CGS>                                           56,515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (46)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,969
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,755
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,214
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.22


</TABLE>
Jay SCHNEEMAN, Employee, Plaintiff v. FOOD LION, LLC/DELHAIZE AMERICA, LLC, Employer, Self-insured (Risk Management Services, Inc., Third-Party Administrator), Defendant.

No. COA18-246

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Kelvin K. DRAKEFORD, Plaintiff, v. Janil BAEZ, Defendant.

No. COA18-181

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 2, 2018

AFFIRMED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4702 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow all taxpayers a 

credit against income tax for up to $1,000 of charitable contributions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

Mr. FORBES 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 allow all 

taxpayers a credit against income tax for up to $1,000 

of charitable contributions. 

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 ‘‘Citizens’ Choice Act 

5 of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN CHARITABLE CONTRIBU7 TIONS. 

8 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Subpart B of part IV of sub9 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4702 IH

1 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 

2 section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 30E. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN CHARITABLE CONTRIBU4 TIONS. 

5 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—There shall be allowed as a 

6 credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the tax7 able year an amount equal to the charitable contributions 

8 (as defined in section 170(c)) made in cash by the tax9 payer during the taxable year to one or more organizations 

10 described in section 170(b)(1)(A). 

11 ‘‘(b) MAXIMUM CREDIT.—The credit allowed by sub12 section (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed $1,000. 

13 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION BASED ON LIABILITY FOR TAX.— 

14 The credit allowed by subsection (a) for any taxable year 

15 shall not exceed the excess (if any) of— 

16 ‘‘(1) the regular tax for the taxable year re17 duced by the sum of the credits allowable under sub18 part A and the preceding sections of this subpart, 

19 over 

20 ‘‘(2) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable 

21 year. 

22 ‘‘(d) SPECIAL RULES.— 

23 ‘‘(1) CREDIT IN LIEU OF DEDUCTION.—The 

24 credit provided by subsection (a) for any charitable 

25 contribution shall be in lieu of any deduction otherVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:24 Feb 26, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4702.IH H4702

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4702 IH

1 wise allowable under this chapter for such contribu2 tion. 

3 ‘‘(2) ELECTION TO HAVE SECTION NOT

4 APPLY.—A taxpayer may elect for any taxable year 

5 to have this section not apply.’’. 

6 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

7 for subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 

8 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing new item: 

‘‘Sec. 30E. Credit for charitable contributions.’’. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Jonathan Eugene DIXON

No. 67P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Dixon, Jonathan Eugene.

M. Elizabeth Guzman, Assistant Attorney General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of March 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 7th of March 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of March 2018 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
Exhibit
32. Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Atlantic


Coast
Federal Corporation Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002




Robert J.
Larison, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas B. Wagers, Sr.,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Atlantic Coast Federal
Corporation (the “Company”), each certify in their capacity as an officer of the
Company that they have reviewed the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 and that to the best of their
knowledge:





1.
            the
      report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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.





The
purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
August 16, 2010





/s/ Robert J. Larison, Jr.
              
              /s/ Thomas B. Wagers,
Sr.Robert
      J. Larison, Jr.
              
              Thomas
      B. Wagers, Sr.President
      and
              
              Senior
      Vice President andChief
      Executive Officer
              
              Chief
      Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina, v. Dennis Jason SPIVEY, Defendant.

No. COA17-1312

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 18, 2018

DISMISSED.
1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2765

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Robert Allen Walters, also known as *

Michael Genovese, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Robert Genovese, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2007

Filed: October 1, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Allen Walters appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after

he pleaded guilty to mailing a threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 876(c). He argues the district court erred in applying an enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(2) upon determining that the offense involved more than two
-2-

threats. Specifically, he challenges the district court’s finding that the letters in

question were objectively threatening.

We review the district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo and its

factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Amsden, 213 F.3d 1014, 1015

(8th Cir. 2000). We agree with the district court’s application of section 2A6.1(b)(2),

because the letters were substantially and directly related to the offense conduct. See

U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1, comment. (n.1) (in determining whether enhancement should apply,

court should consider conduct that is “substantially and directly connected to the

offense, under the facts of the case taken as a whole”). We also conclude that the

court did not clearly err in finding the letters objectively threatening, because we

believe that unambiguous language in the letters would lead any reasonable person

familiar with the context to perceive the letters as threatening. See United States v.

Bellrichard, 994 F.2d 1318, 1323-24 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard is whether “a

reasonable recipient, familiar with the context of the communication, would interpret

it as a threat”; communications must be viewed both in “textual context and also in

the context of the totality of the circumstances in which the communication was

made”).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
#### STATE ex rel. Aubrey LEBLANC v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2224.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re LeBlanc, Aubrey;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 90790; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 KA 2856.

Denied.
---

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(A)/15d-14(A) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 AND 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

I, William Dunavant, Chief Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of Intrepid Global Imaging 3D Inc certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Intrepid Global Imaging 3D Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e) 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 me by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual 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 (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Presented in this annual report my
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my 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; 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; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there
were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

/s/ William Dunavant

By: William Dunavant Chief Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer

April 15, 2008

---
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                  Certification of the Chief Executive 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 Monadnock Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William M. Pierce, Jr., President and Chief Executive 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 and in connection with this quarterly report
on Form 10-QSB that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a)
            or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

      2.    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the company's financial condition and results of
            operations.


Date: August 10, 2007                  /s/ William M. Pierce, Jr.
                                       --------------------------
                                       William M. Pierce, Jr.
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer

                                      25
#### Frank P. Dearing, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Carey C. Carlton, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 23, 1928.

*69
      *Leitner & Leitner,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*W. D. Bell,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.