alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

THOMAS FRANK OWEN,

Plaintiff,

VS

DAVID MORGAN, Sheriff of

Escambia County, Florida: Deputy

Sheriff JOHN MATTHEW WATKINS,

Defendants.

CASE NO. : 3 : I 0-ov-286-MCR/CJK

REPORT OF PARTIES IN RESPONSE TO ORDER OF APRIL I8,2OI2 (DOC.72)

Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, respond to this Court's

Order of April 18,2012 (Doc. 72) and submit the following:

1. This case is a jury trial.

2. The parties suggest that four (4) days may be required for trial in this matter.

3. Plaintifls co-counsel, James Murray, advises the Court he will be out of the

country during the last week of July and the first week of August, 2012, and has a scheduled

conflict the week of July 8,2012. Defendants' counsel advises this Court of a possible conflict

from November 26 through December 14,2012, as a result of being notified of the likelihood of

being placed on a trial docket in another case to be tried in the Panama City Division of the

Northem District of Florida. Defendants' counsel also will be out of state from June 9 through

June 17, 2012, performing mission work in Tennessee and has a pre-paid family vacation during

the week of July l, 2012. Counsel requests consideration of these conflicts as the Court

determines any trial dates for this case.

1

Case 3:10-cv-00286-MCR-CJK Document 73 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 2
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of April2}l2

/s/ James R. Murray

JAMES R. MURRAY, ESQ

Florida Bar No. 0299162

j rmunavlaw@hughes.net

JULIA O. MURRAY, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 364827

j uliamurray@huehes.net

James R. Murray, P.A.

420F.. Pine Avenue

Crestview, Florida 32536

Tel: (850) 982-616s

Fax: (850) 682-8343

/slEric D. Stevenson

ERIC D. STEVENSON

Florida Bar No. 144495

eric @dav rdsell ers. com

919 North 12th Avenue

Pensacola, Florida 32501

Tel: (850) 434-5395

Fax: (850) 469-0043

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Keith C. Tischler

KEITH C. TISCHLER

Florida Bar No. 0334081

kct@ollylaw.com

Jolly & Peterson, P.A

2145 Delta Blvd., Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Post Office Box 37400

Tallahassee, Florida 323I5

Tel: (850) 422-0282

Fax: (850) 422-1913

Attorney for Defendants

2

Case 3:10-cv-00286-MCR-CJK Document 73 Filed 04/24/12 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Richland Resources
Corp. ("Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|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:  March 20, 2012
|---------------------
|                     
|By:                  
|                     
|
Case 4:10-cv-00483-RH-WCS   Document 91-1   Filed 11/17/11   Page 1 of 9

Case 4:10-cv-00483-RH-WCS   Document 91-1   Filed 11/17/11   Page 2 of 9

Case 4:10-cv-00483-RH-WCS   Document 91-1   Filed 11/17/11   Page 3 of 9

Case 4:10-cv-00483-RH-WCS   Document 91-1   Filed 11/17/11   Page 4 of 9

Case 4:10-cv-00483-RH-WCS   Document 91-1   Filed 11/17/11   Page 5 of 9

Case 4:10-cv-00483-RH-WCS   Document 91-1   Filed 11/17/11   Page 6 of 9

Case 4:10-cv-00483-RH-WCS   Document 91-1   Filed 11/17/11   Page 7 of 9

Case 4:10-cv-00483-RH-WCS   Document 91-1   Filed 11/17/11   Page 8 of 9

Case 4:10-cv-00483-RH-WCS   Document 91-1   Filed 11/17/11   Page 9 of 9
# C_2011068EN.01000401.xml

| 3.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 March 2011

2011/C 68/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3809 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4559 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84780 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7330 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2799 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7020 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,289 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 271,28 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7050 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9845 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2030 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2353 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3619 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3454 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7585 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8634 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7547 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 554,74 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5742 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0760 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4225 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 171,77 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1917 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,002 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,3190 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,200 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2951 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7422 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,0710 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3809

JPY

Japanese yen

113,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4559

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84780

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7330

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2799

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7020

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,289

HUF

Hungarian forint

271,28

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7050

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9845

RON

Romanian leu

4,2030

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2353

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3619

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3454

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7585

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8634

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7547

KRW

South Korean won

1 554,74

ZAR

South African rand

9,5742

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0760

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4225

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 171,77

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1917

PHP

Philippine peso

60,002

RUB

Russian rouble

39,3190

THB

Thai baht

42,200

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2951

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7422

INR

Indian rupee

62,0710

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
CERTIFICATION 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 Imagine Media, Ltd., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory A. Bloom, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  _/s/ Gregory A. Bloom________ Gregory A. Bloom Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer June 16, 2009
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOHN L. JACKSON, III,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv330-RH/WCS

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, submitted a civil rights complaint, doc. 1, on August

6, 2010. It took until October 27, 2010, for Plaintiff to submit the initial partial filing fee,

doc. 7, and thus, only now has Plaintiff's complaint been reviewed. 

Plaintiff is currently detained in the Duval County Jail. Doc. 1. It appears that

Plaintiff is still facing criminal charges. All of the Defendants named are employed by

the Duval County Sheriff's Office, although improperly identified by Plaintiff as police

officers with the Sheriff's Office. Doc. 1. The events transpired in Duval County, Florida

as well. Because Duval County is located in the Middle District of Florida, as are each

of the Defendants, the proper forum for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and
Page 2 of 3

28 U.S.C. § 89(b) is in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,

Jacksonville Division. 

A federal district court has the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer a

case to another district or division "in which it could have been brought." The Eleventh

Circuit has recognized the court's ability to raise the issue of defective venue sua

sponte, but limited the court's ability to dismiss an improperly filed case for lack of venue

without giving the parties an opportunity to respond. Lipofsky v. New York State

Workers Comp. Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 1988) (stating "a district court may

raise on its own motion an issue of defective venue or lack of personal jurisdiction; but

the court may not dismiss without first giving the parties an opportunity to present their

views on the issue.") The Lipofsky court did not place the same limitations on the

court's ability to transfer a case to the appropriate forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a). See Lipofsky, 861 F.2d at 1259, n. 2. Thus, it is recommended that the case

be transferred rather than dismissed.

In light of the foregoing, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), the

undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS transfer of this action to the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, for all further

proceedings.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 3, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:10cv330-RH/WCS
Page 3 of 3

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv330-RH/WCS
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Shengrui Resources Co. Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:





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.








Dated:  March
15, 2010





By:        /s/
Donald Fairholm


Donald
Fairholm


Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 annual report of Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended August 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Royall,
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
to the best of my knowledge:

(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.




_________________________________________
Richard R. Royall, Chief Financial Officer
December 16, 2002
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MICHAEL SCOTT WARREN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cv231/LAC/MD

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al.,

Defendants.

 

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated September 2, 2010. The plaintiff has been furnished a copy

of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections

have been filed. 

Having considered the report and recommendation, I have determined that the

report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to comply

with an order of the court and failure to prosecute this action.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1 day of October, 2010. st

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11

                              FIRST AMENDMENT TO
              ENSERCH EXPLORATION, INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
                                        
     WHEREAS, EEX CORPORATION, formerly known as Enserch Exploration, Inc. (the
"Company"), has heretofore adopted and currently maintains the ENSERCH
EXPLORATION, INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN (the "Plan") for the benefit of its
eligible employees; and

     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as
hereinafter provided:

     1.  Effective as of December 19, 1997, the Plan shall be renamed as the
"EEX Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan" and all references therein to the
name of the Plan shall be amended accordingly.

     2.  Effective as of November 1, 1998, Section 3.2 of the Plan and the
following shall be  substituted therefor:

          "Section 3.2 Bonus Deferral Election. During the Election Period prior
     to the beginning of each Plan Year, an Eligible Employee may elect to have
     the payment of an amount up to 100% of the cash portion of any bonus
     otherwise payable by an Employer during such Plan Year deferred for payment
     in the manner and at the time specified in Article IV. Any provision of
     this Plan to the contrary notwithstanding, (i) the minimum amount that may
     be deferred by an Eligible Employee for a Plan Year pursuant to this
     Section 3.2 shall be $5,000 (or such other amount as shall be determined by
     the Administrative Committee in its discretion) unless such Eligible
     Employee elects to defer for the same Plan Year at least $5,000 (or such
     other amount as shall be determined by the Administrative Committee in its
     discretion) pursuant to Section 3.1, and (ii) in no event shall the amount
     deferred by a Participant pursuant to this Section 3.2 exceed the Net
     Amount Payable to such Participant. All elections made pursuant to this
     Section 3.2 shall be made in writing on a form prescribed by and filed with
     the Administrative Committee and shall be irrevocable by the Participant."

     3.   As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.

     EXECUTED this 1st day of November, 1998.

                                    EEX CORPORATION


                                    By   /s/ T. M Hamilton
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      T. M Hamilton
                                      Chairman, President and Chief Executive
                                      Officer
EX-10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE (“First Amendment”) made this 1st day of September, 2013, by and between Chesapeake Capital Group Limited
Partnership, a Texas limited partnership, (“Lessor”), and Enovation Controls, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, (“Lessee”) with reference to the following facts: 

 

	 	(a)	LEASE TERM. This Lease shall be extended and continue until January 31, 2022. 

 NOW THEREFORE,
the Lessee assumes all rights and responsibilities under the Original Lease. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First
Amendment on the day and year first above set forth. 
  

											
	“Lessor”:	 		 	 CHESAPEAKE CAPITAL GROUP A LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP, a Texas limited partnership

				
		 		 	By:	 	 Chesapeake Capital Group LP
 Texas
limited liability company, Its General
 Partner

						
		 		 		 	By:	 	/s/ Frank W. Murphy III	 	
		 		 		 		 	 Frank W. Murphy, III, General Partner
 2602 E.
28th Street
 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114
	 	
			
	“Lessee”:	 		 	 ENOVATION CONTROLS, LLC, an Oklahoma

limited liability company

					
		 		 	By:	 	/s/ Dave Crowell	 	
		 		 		 	 Dave Crowell, VP Finance
 5311 S.
122nd East Avenue
 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74146
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7607

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

IRIS F. ALLEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:09-cr-00355-HEH-1; 3:11-cv-00361-HEH)

Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: March 14, 2014

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Iris F. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Colombell Marshall, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Shannon Y. 

Dion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Iris F. Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Allen 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
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 41171

MICHAEL GARRETT , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION , Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:17

- CV

- 337

Before ELROD, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Garrett, Texas prisoner # 697364 , moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court ’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Garrett has failed to show that he
sho uld be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) or that his appeal of the district court’s judgment presents a nonfrivolous issue. See

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 11, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-41171 Document: 00514507935 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2018No. 17

- 41171

2 Baños v. O’Guin , 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998); Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d
56 2, 586 (5th Cir. 1982 ). Garrett ’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied. The facts surrounding the IFP decision are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolou s issues and is dismissed as frivolous. 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP ON APPEAL DENIED; APPEAL
DISMISSED. Case: 17-41171 Document: 00514507935 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40384

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FINAS HEARD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-208-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Finas Heard pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute, dispense, and

possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. In March of

2011, the district court sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment, the

mandatory minimum in effect at the time of Heard’s offense conduct, and five

years of supervised release. The district court rejected Heard’s argument that

the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) should apply retroactively to him. Heard

appeals that decision. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 29, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-40384 Document: 00512035502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2012
No. 11-40384

We held this matter in abeyance pending the outcome of Dorsey v. United

States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012). In light of Dorsey’s holding that the FSA applies

retroactively to those whose conduct occurred before the FSA’s effective date of

August 3, 2010, but who were sentenced after that date, we VACATE Heard’s

sentence and REMAND this case for resentencing consistent with Dorsey.

2

Case: 11-40384 Document: 00512035502 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2012