alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.14
 
 
              
 1




---



##### 



On-line Loan Collections Module (OLC)
    
    $0.015/$200 minimumCheck Reconciliation System (CRS)
    
    $0.01Delinquent Child Support Module (DCS) with Tier Tech
    
    $0.025OFAC Processing Module (ORM)
    
    $275 per month flat feeCentralized Prime (monthly extracts)
    
    $0.03/$400 minimumFiserv EFT Auto-Maintenance
    
    $250 per month flat feeFiserv EFT Waive Surcharge
    
    $0.005/$200 minimumCarreker Deposit and On Us Fraud Protection
    
    $0.035/$780 minimumSafe Deposit Module
    
    $0.015/$150 minimumElectronic Cash Letter for Business Resumption
    
    $250.00 per run (determined
by Client-per item fees per original Agreement)Fiserv EFT Auto-Reconciliation
    
    $0.01/$300 minimumEnterprise Leased Premier Platform License
    
    $0.05/$1145 minimumCentralized Premier Platform Processing
    
    $0.015/$200Special Memo-post Daily Processing
    
    $0.05 per item memo-posted/$250 minimumS1 Online Internet Banking Interface
    
    $0.03/$475 minimumPremier Messenger
    
    $0.015Carreker Kiting Module
    
    $0.028Custom Wire Transfer Interface for Fundtechs PAYPlus
    
    $0.015/$350 minimumTransaction Management System
    
    $0.02Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)
    
    $0.01/$300 minimumDaily Creation of BAI Formatted File and
Name and AddressFile for S1 Internet Banking Online Interface
    
    $450.00 per month flat feeMOVEit EZ (annual maintenance of $150.00)
    
    20 percentCheck Image Processing (CIP) for DCM Item Processing
    
    $0.02/$300 minimum(Client may discontinue this service at any time)
      
 2




---



##### 



Mercantile Bank of Michigan
    
    
    
    
    
    Fiserv Solutions, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ John Schulte
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ James T. CrossName:
    
    John Schulte
    
    
    
    
    
    Name: James T. CrossTitle:
    
    SVP  Chief Information Officer
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    President, ITI OutsourcingCentral RegionDated:
    
    December 17, 2006
    
    
    
    
    
    Dated: December 20, 2006
 3
2:08-cv-14999-PDB-RSW Doc # 84 Filed 08/15/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1202
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 44756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17513]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Workgroup Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Strategic Planning 
Implementation Workgroup organized by the Interagency Autism 
Coordinating Committee (IACC).
    The workgroup meeting will be closed to the public with attendance 
limited to invited participants. The purpose of the workgroup meeting 
is to discuss future granting opportunities and budgetary requirements 
for the IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) 
Research. The workgroup recommendations will be forwarded to the IACC 
for consideration and discussion at its next meeting on November 21, 
2008.

    Name of Committee: Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee 
(IACC).
    Type of meeting: Strategic Planning Implementation Workgroup.
    Date: August 8, 2008.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. EDT.
    Agenda: Review of budgetary requirements and funding 
opportunities for the IACC Strategic Plan for ASD Research.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Room 8233, Bethesda, MD.
    Contact Person: Azik Schwechter, PhD., Office of Autism Research 
Coordination, Office of the Director, National Institute of Mental 
Health, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC, Room 8203a, Bethesda, MD 
20892-9669, 301-443-7163, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c1f0f041b090f0418091e0d2c010d050042020504420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cab9a9a2bdafa9a2beafb8ab8aa7aba3a6e4a4a3a2e4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Information about the IACC is available on the Web site: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-funding/scientific-meetings/recurring-meetings/iacc/index.shtml.

    Dated: July 24, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-17513 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6667

PAULUS IRVIN PERKINS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CARA PRUETT, Individually and as Business Manager; V. STOKES, Individually and as Assistant Business Manager; S. MOE

- WILLIS, Individually and as Regional Ombudsman; G. CONWELL, Individually and as Fiscal Technician; D. JOHNSON AMA, Individually and as Grievance Respondent; TERRILYN ABERNATHY, Individually and as Grievance Respondent; A. JACKSON, Individually and as Grievance Coordinator; MARIE MITCHELL, Individually and as Counselor; V. DILLARD, Official Capacity; F. B. SHUPARD, Individually and as Sergeant/Corrections Officer; A. E. SPEEDE, Individually and as Lieutenant/Corrections Off icer; R. T. JACKSON, Individually and as Counselor; M. TOMLIN, Individually and as Program Manager; S. L. JONES, Individually and as Sergeant/Corrections Officer; L. WITCHER, Individually and as Hearings Officer; J. ADAMS, Individually and as Grievance Res pondent , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Rossie David Alston, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00919

- RDA

- TCB )

Submitted : August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6667 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 Paulus Irvin Perkins , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6667 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Paulus Irvin Perkins appeals the district court’s order s directing him to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, denying reconsideration, directing him to file a second amended complaint, and dismissing his second amended complaint for failure to st ate a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order s
. Perkins v. Pruett , No.
1:21

- cv - 00919

- RDA

- TCB (E.D. Va. Aug. 23 & Dec. 1, 2021, Feb. 9 & May 4, 2022 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6667 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
#### Robert L. MORRIS, Respondent, v. MEDICAL BUILDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant.

No. WD 50580.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Submitted Oct. 10, 1995.

Decided Dec. 19, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 30, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied March 26, 1996.

Tina Smith, Kansas City, Jay B. Brown, Kansas City, for appellant.

Gene P. Graham, Jr., Independence, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Medical Building Limited Partnership appeals from an award on a jury verdict in a personal injury case in which Robert C. Morris was awarded $90,000. The appellant presents evidentiary issues on appeal, including a contention that it should have been permitted to introduce records of a personality profile evaluation of the plaintiff conducted three years before the injuries in question in this case suggesting that, at that time, the plaintiff suffered from hypochondria.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
© .

. da,
hi Packaging Specialties Inc. .
. ‘MANHATTAN CONTAINER CORP. — |
Bz/37/ 89. $1929

OO PHONE G1) aeS2k0 EAR OO) TSB38S9
nal sega ERS PALOF LAG NO. BaPRED VA Ty
36 WED 36 24428 OUR TRUCK Pre-Paid
342
so.oTo suePEDTO . .
' INBLFA ROOP S¥STEHS, TAC INALSA ROOF SYSTBWS. THC
L376 PACIFIC DRIVE
1378 PACIFIC CRTVR AURURN HILLE, NI 46325
RUBUER NILLB. MI 48226 .
Se
341338 : WEWUGSS ASSEMBLY 28 C] 327.08 3278 ..a@
BEIGG18 GA
Piles 934324
SeTB 4
Fd, CUA ASS Ge RADE Wen Fave te wari ters,
Remit to: 14280. KALTZ « WARREN, MICHIGAN 48089
te 6a7Eg. a
CONFIDENTIAL
Popedas


EXHIBIT 35


Packaging Speciaities Inc.

MANHATTAN CONTAINER C CORP. eral =|
PHONE (BI) 250-2280 FAN (oO) Po9857 B2E11 10% $1303

Tens GAL OF RONG HG. ‘SAP FED VA Poe
16 NET 36 218124 OUR TRUCK Roms - Pato
382
SLOTS SHEFEDTO
TNALFA ROOF SYSTENS, INC INALPA ROOF AYSTEME. Tx:
1270 PACIFIC DRIVE i378 PACIFIC DRIVS
BUBURN HILEG. MI 48526 . . AUBURN ATLLE, MI 4p 226
PPR oe a nen
124328 : NEWWG5SS ASSEMBLY - 3] G 327.¢@ SP. Go
3381022 BA
Filee 934320
H
2
. Tos 982.8
ALL SLAIN MUST BE ata (YTS five (SFYPORRING OSV.
Remit to: 11980 KALTZ « WARREN, MICHIGAN 48089
o\ nel
re CONFIDENTIAL

093133



< .

: .Packaging Specialties Inc.

. >) = "MANHATTAN, CONTAINER CORP.

5 DATE ~ 2:
11350 KALTZ, WARREN, MI 48089
PHONE (810) 758-5240 FAX (810) 758-3557 82/24/60

‘SALESMAN ‘TERMS ‘BILL OF LADING NO.
ié HAT 36 24012 SUR
343 .
SQLOTO SHIPPED TO
INALFA ROOF SYSTEMS, INC INALFA ROOF SYSTEMS, INC

1370 PACIFIC DRIVE

2376 PACIFIC DRIVE AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326

AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326

-pescfrrion
111338 NEWNGSS ASSEMBLY 19] C| 327.80 6212 .0@
S6OTGIA . BA
Wile# 934320
Loge
6212.6
= ALL CLAIMS MUST BE MADE WITHIN FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS,
2 Remit to: 11350 KALTZ » WARREN, MICHIGAN 48089
tet e27-90 :
CONFIDENTIAL

P003135
#### Byron WEBSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 63990.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 8, 1994.

John Klosterman, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after remand for an evidentiary hearing, 837 S.W.2d 585. We find no clear error. Rule 29.15(j). We further find an opinion in this matter would have no prece-dential value and affirm by written order. Rule 84.16(b)(2). A memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION





In connection with the annual report of CPC of America, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marcia J. Hein, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer), 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), as applicable, 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: September 7, 2011
/s/ Marcia J. HeinMarcia J. HeinChief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and

Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETER LUKASAVITZ,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 08-20499

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On April 19, 2013, the court issued an “Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s

28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion.” Lukasavitz now asks the court to issue a certificate

appealability (“COA”) on all of the claims raised in his § 2255 motion.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an appeal may not proceed

unless a COA is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A COA may be issued “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The substantial showing threshold is satisfied when a petitioner

demonstrates “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Lukasavitz argues that because many courts have criticized the guidelines

sentencing range for child pornography offenses, and imposed sentences below the

applicable guidelines range, this demonstrates that reasonable jurists can disagree

2:08-cr-20499-RHC-DAS Doc # 49 Filed 12/24/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 356
regarding the constitutionality of Lukasavitz’s sentence, thereby necessitating the

issuance of a COA. 

However, Lukasavitz ignores the fact that the United States Probation

Department recommended a guidelines-range calculation of 210–240 months’

imprisonment. After the government moved for a reduction in Lukasavitz’s sentence,

the court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment—30 months below the low-end of

the applicable guidelines range. Further, Lukasavitz accepted a favorable plea

agreement, thereby waiving his right to a direct appeal questioning his attorney’s

representation. As the court noted at Lukasavitz’s sentencing hearing, this may have

been a sound strategic decision: 

[I]t’s perhaps strategically wise for a defendant to enter a plea of guilty, rather

than contesting these matters and exposing his behavior in full bloom to the

judge who ultimately may be responsible for sentencing him.

(Pg. ID 139.) The court does not find that reasonable jurists would find the court’s

assessment of Lukasavitz’s claims debatable or wrong. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Lukasavitz’s “Motion for Certificate of Appelability”

[Dkt. # 46] is DENIED.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 24, 2013

2

2:08-cr-20499-RHC-DAS Doc # 49 Filed 12/24/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 357
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, December 24, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-20499.LUKASAVITZ.OrderDenyCOA.jac.wpd

3

2:08-cr-20499-RHC-DAS Doc # 49 Filed 12/24/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 358
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERVARES WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, Civil Action No. 08-CV-14568

vs. HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

GERALD D. HOFBAUER,

Respondent.

_______________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is presently before the court on petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas

corpus. Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives has submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

in which he recommends that the court deny petitioner’s application and decline to issue a certificate

of appealability. Neither party has filed objections to the R&R and the time for doing so has

expired. Having reviewed petitioner’s application, respondent’s answer, petitioner’s reply to

respondent’s answer, and the R&R, the court is persuaded that the magistrate judge has correctly

analyzed all of the issues and that his recommendation is sound. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Komives’ R&R is hereby accepted and adopted as

the findings and conclusions of the court.
2

Civil Action No. 08-CV-14568

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.

s/Bernard A. Friedman

BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 15, 2010

Detroit, Michigan

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document 

was served upon counsel of record by electronic and/or first-class mail.

S/Carol Mullins 

Case Manager to Judge Friedman
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-30009

Summary Calendar

____________________

JAMES EDWARD GRANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ECKERD CORPORATION; GARY GADDY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1153)

_________________________________________________________________

October 2, 1997

Before SMITH, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Edward Grant appeals from an adverse judgment and the

denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law, or for new

trial, following an adverse jury verdict on his race-based

termination claims against Eckerd Corporation. The basis given by

Eckerd for his termination was falsification of an employee’s

payroll records. 
Grant contends that the district court reversibly erred by

excluding evidence, under FED. R. EVID. 403, that Gaddy, Eckerd’s

area operations manager and Grant’s supervisor, never promoted a

black assistant manager to manager and that Grant was the only

black manager in Gaddy’s district. Grant asserts also that the

jury verdict was clearly contrary to the evidence. 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in excluding the evidence and that, based on the

evidence, a rational juror could have reached hte verdict adverse

to Grant. Accordingly, the judgment is 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34858-34859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16882]


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

[[Page 34859]]


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[NV-020-1900-01]


Twin Creeks Mine Draft Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, notice is given that the Winnemucca District of the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared, by third party 
contractor, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Santa Fe Pacific 
Gold Corporation's Twin Creeks Mine Consolidation and Expansion 
Project. This document is available for public review for a 45 day 
period.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement must be postmarked by September 3, 1996.
    A public meeting to receive oral and written comments has been 
scheduled for the date and place listed below. The meeting will begin 
at 7:00 p.m., August 15, 1996, at the Winnemucca District Office, 
Winnemucca, Nevada.
    A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be obtained 
from: Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office, ATTN: 
Gerald Moritz, Project Manager, 5100 E. Winnemucca Boulevard, 
Winnemucca, Nevada 89445.
    The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for 
inspection at the following additional locations: Bureau of Land 
Management, Nevada State Office, 850 Harvard Way, Reno, Nevada; 
Humboldt County Library, Winnemucca, Nevada; Lander County Library, 
Battle Mountain, Nevada; and the University of Nevada Library in Reno, 
Nevada.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald Moritz, Project Manager at the 
above Winnemucca District address or telephone (702) 623-1500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could result from the 
consolidation and expansion of the current gold mining operation at the 
Twin Creeks Mine. Alternatives analyzed include the Proposed Action, No 
Action, the Partial Vista Pit Backfill Alternative, the Selective 
Handling of Overburden and Interburden Storage Area Alternatives. The 
project involves the consolidation of the Rabbit Creek and Chimney 
Creek Mines, expansion of the South Pit, overburden and interburden 
storage area, ore processing facilities, expanded dewatering system and 
water disposal facilities, and diversion of Rabbit Creek and 
tributaries.

    Dated June 21, 1996.
Ron Wenker,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 96-16882 Filed 7-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 30673 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. NELSON BELL, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:19

- CR

- 74

- 1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nelson Bell, Jr., pleaded guilty to possessing unregistered firearms, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and was sentenced above the guidelines range to 72 months of imprisonment. He argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable, urging that t he district court failed to consider his serious health problems and asserting that his medical condition renders a prison

* 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 April 8, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-30673 Document: 00515376388 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2020No. 19

- 30673

2 sentence much harsher for him than the average inmate and mitigates his future dangerousness.
We review the substantive reasonablene ss of a sentence under a highly deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard. United States v. Diehl , 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant we ight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Bell’s assertion that that the district co urt failed to consider his health problems is defeated by the record. Hi s ailments were detailed in the presentence report , which the district court adopted , and were further highlighted in his sentencing memorandum, which the district court specifically stated it had considered when selecting the appropriate sentence. The court listed at length the reasons that it found a guidelines sentence to be inadequate, including : the serious nature of Bell’s offense, which involved hi m firing a shotgu n at his wife ; th at Bell’s criminal history category inadequately reflected the nature of his criminal history ; the need to protect the public from Bell given his history of domestic abuse and violence ; and the need for
deterrence

— all of which a re proper s entencing concerns. See § 3553(a); see also United States v. Fraga , 704 F.3d 432, 4 40

- 41 (5th Cir. 2013) . The court’s refusal to award a within

- guidelines sentence based on Bell’s mitigating arguments does not render the sentence imposed unreasonable. S ee id

. Bell h as not d emonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in selecting the sentence imposed

. See Diehl , 775 F.3d at 724 ; Cooks , 589 F.3d at
186 . Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-30673 Document: 00515376388 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2020