alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hei Yu Chio, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered on February 8, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from five years to life, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305). Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance wdth his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 918). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
NUMBER 13-17-00576-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RAUL ERNESTO SILVA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24th District Court 

of Calhoun County, Texas.

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

Currently pending before the Court is appellant's motion for pro se access to the 

appellate record. Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief herein and appellant has 

been unable to examine the record so that he can file a pro se brief. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial court ensure that appellant has 

the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or before August 13, 2018, and it 
2

is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court notify this Court as to the date upon which the 

appellate record was made available to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate record was first 

made available to him to file his pro se brief with this Court. The State shall have twenty 

days thereafter to file its response, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

24th day of July, 2018.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C., ss.1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Smartpay Express, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 results of operations of Smartpay Express Inc.








Date: November 15, 2010
By
/s/ Jin LiuJin LiuVice President and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906CERTIFICATION**

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Foundation Coal Corporation for the period ended September 30, 2005, I,James F. Roberts Chief Executive Officer of Foundation Coal Corporation herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.                This Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Foundation Coal Corporation.
| Date: November 14, 2005 | /s/ JAMES  F. ROBERTS     |
|------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                         | James F. Roberts          |
| * *                     | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
[Cite as State v. Jones, 2022-Ohio-2603.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

GREENE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER R. JONES

Defendant-Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Appellate Case No. 2022-CA-1

Trial Court Case No. 2019-CR-678

(Criminal Appeal from

Common Pleas Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 29th day of July, 2022. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

MEGAN A. HAMMOND, Atty. Reg. No. 0097714, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Greene

County Prosecutor’s Office, 61 Greene Street, Suite 200, Xenia, Ohio 45385

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

 

GLENDA A. SMITH, Atty. Reg. No. 0070738, P.O. Box 15353, Wyoming, Ohio 45215

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-2-

TUCKER, P.J.

{¶ 1} Christopher R. Jones appeals from his conviction following a negotiated 

guilty plea to one count of involuntary manslaughter with a forfeiture specification.

{¶ 2} In two assignments of error, Jones challenges the trial court’s overruling of a 

suppression motion he filed prior to his plea. We conclude that Jones’ guilty plea waived 

his ability to challenge the suppression ruling on appeal. Accordingly, the trial court’s 

judgment will be affirmed. 

I. Background 

{¶ 3} A grand jury indicted Jones on charges of involuntary manslaughter, 

corrupting another with drugs, and heroin trafficking. The indictment included a forfeiture 

specification pertaining to seized drugs and contraband. 

{¶ 4} Jones subsequently moved to suppress certain statements he made and the 

results of a cell-phone search. The trial court overruled the motion after an evidentiary 

hearing. Following the trial court’s ruling, Jones entered into a plea agreement with the 

State. In exchange for his guilty plea to involuntary manslaughter, the State agreed to 

dismiss the other charges and agreed to a seven-year prison sentence. The State further 

agreed to dismiss a second criminal case against Jones and not to prosecute him for any

other known criminal activity. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and imposed the 

agreed sentence. 

II. Analysis

{¶ 5} On appeal, Jones challenges only the trial court’s suppression ruling. He 
-3-

contends the trial court should have suppressed a statement he made about missing his 

cell phone. He also claims a search warrant for the cell phone was insufficient. As the 

State notes, however, Jones’ guilty plea waived his ability to challenge the trial court’s 

suppression ruling. State v. Barron, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2017-CA-46, 2018-Ohio-1221,

¶ 5. “Moreover, any error in the suppression ruling necessarily would be harmless where 

[Jones’] conviction resulted from his guilty plea and none of the evidence at issue was 

admitted against him.” Id. Accordingly, we overrule the two assignments of error. 

III. Conclusion

{¶ 6} The judgment of the Greene County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

WELBAUM, J. and EPLEY, J., concur. 

Copies sent to: 

Megan A. Hammond

Glenda A. Smith

Hon. Adolfo A. Tornichio
#### William J. WELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41611.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 25, 1989.

Gregory P. Robinson, Fayette, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Ronald L. Jurgeson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CLARK, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7527

Global Trade Works, LLC:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1

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 Destination Maternity Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Edward M. Krell, 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, 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ EDWARD M. KRELL    
|Edward M. Krell        
|Chief Executive Officer
|December 14, 2009
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7273

Fayette Pipe Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2755

Curtis Instruments, Puerto Rico, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5434 

To amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to provide for 

12-month continuous enrollment of individuals under the Medicaid program and Children’s Health Insurance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 

Mrs. DINGELL (for herself and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act 

to provide for 12-month continuous enrollment of individuals under the Medicaid program and Children’s Health 

Insurance Program. 

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 ‘‘Stabilize Medicaid and 

5 CHIP Coverage Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5434 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVIDING FOR 12-MONTH CONTINUOUS ENROLL2 MENT OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE MED3 ICAID PROGRAM AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH 

4 INSURANCE PROGRAM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1902(e)(12) of the Social 

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(12)), as amended by 

7 section 5112 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

8 2023, is further amended— 

9 (1) in the header, by striking ‘‘FOR CHILDREN’’; 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘who is under the age of 19 

11 and’’; 

12 (3) in subparagraph (A), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the 

13 end; 

14 (4) by striking subparagraph (B); and 

15 (5) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as sub16 paragraph (B). 

17 (b) CHIP.—2107(e)(1)(K) of the Social Security Act 

18 (42 U.S.C. 1397gg(e)(1)(K)), as amended by section 5112 

19 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, is further 

20 amended— 

21 (1) by striking ‘‘for children’’; 

22 (2) by striking ‘‘targeted low-income child’’ and 

23 inserting ‘‘individual’’; and 

24 (3) by striking ‘‘child becomes’’ and inserting 

25 ‘‘individual becomes’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5434 IH

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

2 this section shall take effect on the first day of the first 

3 fiscal quarter that begins on or after the date that is 1 

4 year after the date of enactment of the Consolidated Ap5 propriations Act, 2023. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FABIAN VAKSMAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-30302

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00074-WFN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Fabian Vanksman appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 10-month

sentence for contempt of court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). Pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Vaksman’s counsel has filed a brief

stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel

FILED

SEP 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-30302

of record. We have provided Vaksman with the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d

1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Vaksman’s pro se request for appointment of substitute counsel, pro se

motions for certification to the Washington Supreme Court, and pro se

supplemental motions for certification to the Washington Supreme Court are

DENIED.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5470 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5470

To extend temporary authority regarding license portability for certain 
  practitioners to be able to practice across State borders, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2023

   Mr. Ciscomani (for himself, Mr. Vasquez, Mr. Carl, and Ms. Perez) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend temporary authority regarding license portability for certain 
  practitioners to be able to practice across State borders, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Medical Exams for Distant 
Areas Act'' or the ``VET MEDS Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION TO MATTERS RELATING TO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS MEDICAL DISABILITY EXAMINATIONS.

    Section 2002(a)(4) of the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. 
Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 (Public Law 
116-315; 38 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``On the date that is three years after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``On 
        September 1, 2028''; and
            (2) by striking ``on the day before the date of the 
        enactment of this Act'' and insert ``on January 4, 2021''.
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 July 21, 2005 Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge Nos. 03-3051 & 03-3064 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JOVAN ALEXANDER and SHANNON HUGHES, Defendants-Appellants

. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin No. 03 CR 06 John C. Shabaz, Judge

. O R D E R After the Supreme Court instructed that the sentencing guidelines are to be applied only in advisory fashion, United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), we ordered a limited remand to determine whether the district court would have sentenced these appellants differently had it known that it was not bound by the guidelines. See United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471, 481 (7th Cir. 2005). The district judge has replied that in both cases he would have imposed identical sentences even under advisory guidelines. We invited the parties to file arguments concerning the reasonableness of the sentences. Having reviewed these responses, we now affirm both sentences. We recently held that a sentence within the applicable guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk , No. 04-1196, 2005 WL 1592956, at *1 (7th Cir. July 7, 2005). An appellant can rebut the presumption by UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53Nos. 03-3051 & 03-3064 Page 2

demonstrating that his sentence is unreasonable when measured against the factors set forth in § 3553(a). Id. at *2. Here, each appellant received a sentence within the guideline range. Alexander received a sentence of 300 months—the middle of the range of 262 to 327 months. And Hughes’s 327-month sentence is in the middle of the calculated range of 292 to 365 months, or, as the parties characterize it, at the top end of the range that would result from a one-level “departure” for substantial assistance. Each appellant argues that his sentence was unreasonable and asks us to remand for resentencing, and the government in both cases urges us to affirm. We conclude that neither appellant has presented an argument sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. The district court gave due weight to the § 3553(a) factors and found that in each case, the sentence imposed was appropriate to hold the defendant accountable for the severity of his crime and to protect the community from a substantial risk of recidivism. Accordingly, as to both appellants, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.