alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 29, 2005 * Decided November 29, 2005

Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 04-4111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. FRANCIS S. MATRIOUS, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin No. 04-CR-104-S-01 John C. Shabaz, Judge

. O R D E R Francis Matrious pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and was sentenced to 200 months’ imprisonment as an armed career criminal, id . § 924(e). Despite stipulating in his plea agreement that the sentencing guidelines applied in their entirety and consenting to judicial factfinding by a preponderance of the evidence, Matrious now argues that he should be resentenced on the ground that the district court believed it was bound by the UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 04-4111 Page 2

sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005); United States v. Schlifer , 403 F.3d 849, 854 (7th Cir. 2005). Matrious’s argument is frivolous for several reasons. First, he did not make a Booker -type objection in the district court even though he was sentenced after the release of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 375 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 2004), judgment aff’d and remanded, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). At best, then, Matrious would be entitled to a limited remand under the plain-error analysis set forth in United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), not a full resentencing. But even a limited remand is unnecessary because we already know that Matrious was not prejudiced by the mandatory application of the guidelines. As the judgment of conviction reflects, the district court would have imposed an identical sentence were it not bound by the guidelines. More importantly, Matrious did not just forfeit his Bookerargument but instead waived altogether the right to challenge the use of the guidelines. He agreed in his plea contract that the guidelines were “applicable in their entirety.” Part of the guidelines as they stood when he was sentenced in November 2004 was the statute requiring their mandatory application. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1). And having been duly warned that the district court read Blakely to preclude it from making “determinations increasing the sentence . . . by a preponderance of the evidence,” Matrious also consented to judicial factfinding by a preponderance of the evidence. Matrious is bound by the concessions he made in his plea agreement and has waived any right to benefit from subsequent changes in the law. See United State v. Berheide, 421 F.3d 538, 542 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bownes , 405 F.3d 634, 636 (7th Cir. 2005). AFFIRMED.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Joseph Sorge, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Yelp Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-04518-PHX-SMM

ORDER 

 Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Reply in 

Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43). Pursuant to the stipulation, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Stipulation for Extension of Time to File 

Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file a reply in support of its 

motion for summary judgment on or before Monday, March 25, 2019. 

Dated this 12th day of March, 2019. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 44 Filed 03/12/19 Page 1 of 1
Case 4:17-cr-01658-JGZ-AMM Document 259 Filed 05/17/23 Page 1 of 1
Opinion issued May 7 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 11
- 00481
- CR

——————————— JOHN FURNACE, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th Judicial District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 63237

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, John Furnace, Jr., has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2 (a). See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued an opinion in the appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.2 42.2(b ). The Clerk of this Court has sent a duplicate copy to the trial court clerk.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). Accordingly, we dismis s the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale. Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).
<Page>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  I-MANY, INC.

                                537 Congress St.
                                    5th Floor
                             Portland, ME 04101-3353

               LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

                                 March 22, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, I-Many, Inc. has
obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen")
stating that the December 31, 2001 audit was subject to their quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working
on the audit and availability of national office consultation. Availability of
personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        I-Many, Inc.

                                        /s/ Kevin Collins

                                        Kevin Collins
                                        Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 268 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 268

  Recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of Earth Hour 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2009

   Mrs. Biggert (for herself and Mr. Barrow) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of Earth Hour 2009.

Whereas Earth Hour began in 2007 in Sydney, Australia, where more than 2,200,000 
        people turned off their lights to raise awareness of climate change;
Whereas Earth Hour went global in 2008 with more than 50,000,000 people in more 
        than 400 cities on all 7 continents participating;
Whereas more than 600 cities in more than 75 countries have agreed to 
        participate in Earth Hour 2009, committing to darkening some of the 
        world's most famous skylines and icons, including the Empire State 
        Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Coliseum in Rome, and the Sears 
        Tower;
Whereas Earth Hour simply requires participants to turn off nonessential lights 
        for one hour;
Whereas communities, individuals, businesses, and organizations will turn off 
        nonessential lighting and cast a visual vote for education, awareness, 
        and action on climate change in support of Earth Hour 2009; and
Whereas the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is sponsoring Earth Hour on March 28, 
        2009, from 8:30 to 9:30 pm in every time zone of the world to increase 
        public awareness of climate change: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and supports 
the goals and ideals of Earth Hour 2009.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ferguson Lee SANDERS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47823.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 25, 1994.

Lorry L. Kohrs, Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, C.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an eviden-tiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129270 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129270 COA: 253514 Wayne CC: 03-001403-01 SHANNON ALVERTA HADLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 10, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0123 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 30, 2006

Clerk
Case 2:17-mj-07554-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-07554-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-07554-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-07554-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/07/17 Page 4 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Fabian Nino Montoya, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-17-50183-PHX-JJT

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant appeared before this Court on a Petition for Revocation of Supervised

Release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the

Petition and file in determining whether defendant should be released on conditions set by

the Court.

The Court finds that defendant has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

does not pose a serious flight risk pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure.

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a serious

flight risk and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure his appearance at future proceedings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 28th day of June, 2018
Case 2:17-cr-01525-GMS Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01525-GMS Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01525-GMS Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01525-GMS Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 4 of 4
**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

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 ofchapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of IHS Inc.(the “Company”), that, to his knowledge, the Form 10-Q of the Company forthe period ended August 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Thiswritten statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionas an exhibit to such report. A signed original of this statement has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Date:  September 24, 2009

 

 
| /s/  Jerre L. Stead                                   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Jerre  L. Stead                                       |   |
| Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer                 |   |
|                                                  |   |
| /s/  Michael J. Sullivan                              |   |
| Michael  J. Sullivan                                  |   |
| Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
#### Richard DANZIGER, Applicant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 1268-89.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

March 28, 1990.

*724Berkley Bettis (court-appointed), Walter C. Prentice, Austin (court-appointed), for appellant.

Ronald Earle, Dist. Atty., William G. Reid, Asst. Dist. Atty., Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPLICANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Applicant filed an application in the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release on bail pursuant to Article 17.151, V.A.C.C.P.1 That court denied relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. *Ex parte Danziger,*775 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.App.—Austin 1989). Applicant filed a petition for discretionary review. This Court granted applicant’s petition in which he challenged the Court of Appeals’ holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional due to our holding in *Meshell v. State,*739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Cr.App.1987).

We find it unnecessary to address the merits of applicant’s allegations. Applicant has been convicted of the offense of aggravated sexual assault and his punishment has been assessed at life. Therefore, applicant’s contentions pertaining to pre-trial confinement due to denial of bail are moot.

The petition for discretionary review is hereby dismissed.

1

. Article 17.151, V.A.C.C.P., states, in pertinent part:

> A defendant who is detained in jail pending trial of an accusation against him must be released either on personal bond or by reducing the amount of bail required, if the state is not ready for trial of the criminal action for which he is being detained within:

> (1) 90 days from the commencement of his detention if he is accused of a felony;....
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALDEN BENJAMIN WHITE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-844

[July 13, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Lawrence M. Mirman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562007CF004044B.

Bryan D. Savy of Bross & Savy, PLLC, West Melbourne, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine 

Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Order filed October 4 , 2018.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 18

- 00664

- CV

____________

CITY OF HOUSTON, TEX AS , Appellant

V.

THE COMMONS AT LAKE HOUSTON, LTD , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1109638



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was originally due August 13, 2018

. See

Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. We granted a n extension through September 28 , 2018 . The

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been

filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Lettie Witter , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal

within 15 days of the date of this order

. No further extension will be entertainedabsent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App.

P. 35.3(c). If Lettie Witter does not timely file the record as ordered, we may issue

an o rder directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the

failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John METHFESSEL, Appellant.

No. WD 42422.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 15, 1990.

Rosalynn Koch, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jared R. Cone, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and GAITAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of attempt to escape from confinement, Section 575.210, RSMo 1986 and sentenced per a jury ver-diet as a prior and persistent offender to five years imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 483 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 483

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 29, 2009.
Whereas veterans of the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection, the 
        Nation's first major foreign conflicts, faced hardships to include a 
        complete lack of medical care and pensions upon discharge from the 
        service;
Whereas, on September 29, 1899, the American Veterans of Foreign Service and in 
        December 1899, the National Society of the Army of the Philippines, were 
        established to advocate for the rights and benefits then denied to 
        veterans of the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection;
Whereas, in subsequent years, membership in these and other veterans 
        organizations continued to grow;
Whereas these veterans organizations, recognizing their common goals and the 
        importance of unity, merged to form the present-day Veterans of Foreign 
        Wars of the United States in 1914;
Whereas membership in the Veterans of Foreign Wars continued to grow and reached 
        nearly 200,000 in 1936 when the organization received its Congressional 
        Charter;
Whereas the 2.3 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies 
        Auxiliary remain committed to the organization's mission of ``ensuring 
        rights, remembering sacrifices, promoting patriotism, performing 
        community services, and advocating for a strong national defense'';
Whereas the organization continues this honorable mission by effectively 
        advocating for our Nation's veterans, to include helping establish the 
        present-day Department of Veterans Affairs, creating the Montgomery G.I. 
        Bill, developing the national cemetery system, and assisting combat 
        wounded veterans receive compensation for their injuries; and
Whereas the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars celebrate the organization's 
        establishment and achievements on September 29th while carrying on the 
        vital mission of their predecessors: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the goals and ideals of 
Veterans of Foreign Wars Day.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### GULF HEALTH CARE, INC. d/b/a Gulf Health Care Center, Relator, v. The Honorable I. Allan LERNER, Respondent.

No. 96-0569.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Aug. 1, 1996.

Allison L. Spruill, Gail N. Friend, Houston, for relator.

Melissa Louise Cooney, Ervin A. Apffel, Jr., Galveston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this mandamus proceeding we are asked to review the propriety of the trial court’s order compelling production of documents the relator claims are protected by the medical peer review committee privilege in Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4495b, § 5.06(j) (Vernon Supp.1996). We believe the trial court should have the opportunity to reconsider its rulings at issue in this proceeding in light of our recent opinions in *Memorial Hosp.*— The *Woodlands v. McCown,*927 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.1996) and *Irving Healthcare System v. Brooks,*927 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.1996). Accordingly, we overrule the motion for leave to file without addressing the merits of the *489motion or petition for writ of mandamus, and without prejudice to relator again requesting relief from the court of appeals and this Court after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its rulings.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26875-26876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13321]



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

[[Page 26876]]


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-421-805]


Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide From 
the Netherlands; Extension of Time Limit of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time Limit of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit for the final results in the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on aramid fiber formed of poly para-phenylene 
terephthalamide (PPD-T aramid) from the Netherlands, covering the 
period December 16, 1993, through May 31, 1995, because it is not 
practicable to complete the review within the time limits mandated by 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Little or Maureen Flannery, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 9, 1996, the Department published the preliminary results 
of this review (see Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene 
Terephthalamide from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 15766). The review covers the 
period December 16, 1993, through May 31, 1995.
    It is not practicable to complete this review within the time 
limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act (see Memorandum for 
Paul Joffe from Joe Spetrini, Extension of Time Limits for 1993-95 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly 
Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands, May 9, 1996). 
Therefore, in accordance with that section, the Department is extending 
the time limits for the final results to September 25, 1996. The 
Department adjusted the time limits by 28 days due to the government 
shutdowns, which lasted from November 14, 1995, to November 20, 1995, 
and from December 15, 1995, to January 6, 1996. See Memorandum to the 
file from Susan G. Esserman, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, January 11, 1996. These extensions are in accordance 
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Dated: May 16, 1996.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 96-13321 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M