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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

 No. 2:09-md-2042 

In Re: REFRIGERANT COMPRESSORS 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 2042 

 

 Honorable Sean F. Cox 

 

 ORDER 

GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

The Court, having considered the Motion to Withdraw of Jeffrey H. 

Newhouse, finds that the Motion should be, and is, hereby, GRANTED. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Jeffrey Newhouse is permitted to withdraw 

as counsel of record for Defendants Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic 

Corporation of North America in the above-captioned matter. 

Dated: January 9, 2014 

 

s/ Sean F. Cox 

 Honorable Sean F. Cox 

United States District Judge 

 

 

2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 462 Filed 01/09/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 11409
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TARAS NYKORIAK

and NATALIA NYKORIAK,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 2:09cv13547

v.

HON MARIANNE O. BATTANI

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, MAG. JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

Secretary, U.S. Department of State,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

STIPULATED ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs Taras Nykoriak and Natalia Nykoriak, and defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton, by

and through their undersigned attorneys, stipulate to the entry of an order dismissing the abovecaptioned case with prejudice and with each party bearing his or her own costs and attorney fees.

PASTOR & ASSOCIATES, PC TERRENCE BERG

United States Attorney

s/Caridad Pastor Cardinale (with consent) s/Derri T. Thomas 

CARIDAD PASTOR CARDINALE (P43551) DERRI T. THOMAS (P53439)

Attorneys for Plaintiff Assistant U.S. Attorney

525 E. Big Beaver, Suite 206 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Troy, MI 48083 Detroit, MI 48226-3211

(248) 619-0065 (313) 226-9153

consultin4u@yahoo.com derri.thomas@usdoj.gov

Dated: November 30, 2009 Dated: November 30, 2009

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

Dated: December 2, 2009 United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-13547-MOB-MAR Document 6 Filed 12/02/09 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 145 Filed 11/13/2009 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 145 Filed 11/13/2009 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 145 Filed 11/13/2009 Page 3 of 3
#### ARMOUR & CO. and A. W. Capel, Appellants, v. R. P. NIVENS, Appellee.

No. 4317.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

March 15, 1938.

John S. Cansler, of Charlotte, N. C., for appellants.

Carswell & Ervin, of Charlotte, N. C., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Case dismissed under rule 20 in accordance with agreement of counsel.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

JASON PULLIAM

JUSTICES FOURTH COURT OF APPE ALS DISTRICT

CADENA

- REEVES JUSTICE CENTE R

300 DOLOROSA, SUIT E 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8205

- 3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4TH COA.ASPX KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335

- 2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335

- 2762

December 9, 2015

Zachary Gibson

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

Paul Elizondo Tower

101 W. N ueva Street

San Antonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Michael Stephen Raign

1633 Babcock Rd. #289

San Antonio, TX 78229

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04

- 15

- 00500

- CV and 04

- 15

- 00505

- CV

Trial Court Case Number: 2015

- MH

- 2596 and 2015

- MH

- 2544

Style: In the B est Interest and Protection of S.W.

Dear Counsel:

The above cause has been set for formal submission ON BRIEFS ONLY before this

Court on December 30, 2015

, before a panel consisting of Justice Barnard, Justice Martinez, and

Justice Chapa

.

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

_________________ ____________ Rosa Gonzalez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53855
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                  CONSENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-81276 (1994 Stock Option Plan), 333-92143 and 333-120685 (1999 Stock Option
Plan), and 33-97850 (Employee Stock Purchase Plan), each on Form S-8, and
Registration Statement No. 33-94378 (Dividend Reinvestment Plan) on Form S-3, of
our reports dated March 14, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Southwest Bancorp, Inc., Southwest Bancorp, Inc. management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Southwest
Bancorp, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Southwest Bancorp,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.



Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 14, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45756-45757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18007]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1175-001]


Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; Notice of Filing

July 31, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 18, 2008, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 
filed an amendment to its June 26, 2008 filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the

[[Page 45757]]

appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. 
Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the 
comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve 
a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f494a5d4c40616366616a5c7a7f7f607d7b4f696a7d6c21686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f2b4b7a0b1bd9c9e9b9c97a18782829d8086b294978091dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 8, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18007 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COMPLETE BUSINESS SERVICES,

INC, and TIMOTHY WILSON

Case No. 09-13518

Plaintiffs HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

v. 

HYPERCEL CORPORATION d/b/a

NAZTECH WIRELESS 

TECHNOLOGIES

Defendant. 

_________________________________/

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEFING

 The instant case is scheduled for a hearing before the Court on Thursday, January 28,

2010 on Defendant Hypercel Corporation’s “Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue” [Doc. No.

4]. Briefs were filed by the parties on November 13, 2009 [Doc. No. 4] and December 1, 2009

[Doc. No. 6], respectively. 

The Sixth Circuit recently released an opinion for publication in Wong v. PartyGaming

Ltd., - - F.3d - -, 2009 WL 4893955 (6th Cir. Dec. 21, 2009). The Court ORDERS both parties

to file supplementary briefing on the applicability of Wong to the facts of the instant case. 

Supplementary briefs are due no later than Thursday, January 14, 2010, and shall be limited to

no more than five pages in length. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: December 29, 2009

2:09-cv-13518-SFC-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 12/29/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 53
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COMPLETE BUSINESS SERVICES,

INC, and TIMOTHY WILSON

Case No. 09-13518

Plaintiffs HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

v. 

HYPERCEL CORPORATION d/b/a

NAZTECH WIRELESS 

TECHNOLOGIES

Defendant. 

_________________________________/

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

on December 29, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13518-SFC-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 12/29/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 54
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 & THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE OF SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,266,327
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,752,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                (2,140,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,437,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,457,223
<PP&E>                                      73,262,895
<DEPRECIATION>                              29,922,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             109,727,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,993,274
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,545
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,476,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               109,727,603
<SALES>                                    105,339,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           105,339,571
<CGS>                                       58,222,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              102,680,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,183,996
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,343,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (17,868,145)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    78,352
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (17,946,497)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (17,946,497)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.96)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Q Lotus Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marckensie Theresias, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





The foregoing statement is furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) and for no other reason.





/s/ Marckensie TheresiasMarckensie Theresias

Chief Financial Officer



August 18, 2011
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4112

To provide for the settlement of claims of Swain County, North Carolina,

against the United States arising under the agreement entered into

on July 30, 1943, by the Tennessee Valley Authority, the State of

North Carolina, Swain County, North Carolina, and the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 18, 1996

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To provide for the settlement of claims of Swain County,

North Carolina, against the United States arising under

the agreement entered into on July 30, 1943, by the

Tennessee Valley Authority, the State of North Carolina,

Swain County, North Carolina, and the United States.

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 ‘‘Swain County Settle5 ment Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 4112 IH

1 SEC. 2. AGREEMENT DEFINED.

2 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘Agreement’’

3 means the agreement entered into on July 30, 1943, by

4 the Tennessee Valley Authority, the State of North Caro5 lina, Swain County, North Carolina, and the United

6 States.

7 SEC. 3. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS.

8 (a) COMPLETION OF ROAD.—Not later than 5 years

9 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

10 of the Interior shall complete, in accordance the terms of

11 the Agreement, the road which is referred to in the Agree12 ment as the ‘‘Park Road’’.

13 (b) PAYMENT TO SWAIN COUNTY.—The Secretary of

14 the Treasury shall pay $16,000,000 to Swain County,

15 North Carolina. Such payment shall be made after and

16 in addition to the completion of the road under subsection

17 (a).

18 (c) CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT.—The payment of

19 funds pursuant to subsection (b) shall be made on the con20 dition that—

21 (1) the funds are deposited into an account in

22 accordance with the rules and regulations estab23 lished by the North Carolina Local Government

24 Commission;

25 (2) the principal of the funds is expended only

26 pursuant to a resolution approved by an affirmative
3

•HR 4112 IH

1 vote of two-thirds of the registered voters of Swain

2 County; and

3 (3) the interest earned on the principal of the

4 funds paid is expended only pursuant to a simple

5 majority vote of the duly elected governing commis6 sion of Swain County.

7 (d) FULL SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS.—Imple8 mentation of subsections (a) and (b) shall constitute full

9 satisfaction of all claims of Swain County against the

10 United States arising under the Agreement.

11 SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON FEES.

12 No more than 10 percent of the payment made pur13 suant to section 3(b) may be paid to or received by any

14 agent or attorney in consideration for services rendered

15 in connection with the claims settled by this Act. Any per16 son who violates this section shall be subject to a fine of

17 not more than $1000.

Æ
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 amended Annual Report of Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Richard J. Freer, Ph.D., Principal Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 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.



|               |  |  |  |                               
|-------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------
|March 31, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    Richard J. Freer, Ph.D.
|               |  |  |  | Richard J. Freer, Ph.D.       
|               |  |  |  | Principal Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

MISC. NO. 09-mc-50528

-vsHON. ROBERT H. CLELAND

PATRICK H. COLEMAN, PRESIDENT,

P.J. HOSPITALITY, INC.,

d/b/a BEANS AND CORNBREAD,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION TO 

ENFORCE IRS SUMMONS

Petitioner having advised the Court that it wishes to dismiss without prejudice the

Petition to Enforce IRS Summons filed against Patrick H. Coleman, President, P.J.

Hospitality, Inc., d/b/a Beans and Cornbread;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition to Enforce IRS Summons brought

against respondent, Patrick H. Coleman, President, P.J. Hospitality, Inc., d/b/a Beans and

Cornbread, by the petitioner is hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 29, 2010
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on

this date, October 29, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522
7

additur have been satisfied, the Court will enter judgment against Defendant Simon in the

amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Order Granting Additur

and/or New Trial is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is

DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Additur is GRANTED in

the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment is

GRANTED, and a revised judgment consistent with this Opinion and Order shall issue.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

David A. Robinson, Esq.

Racine M. Miller, Esq.

Jane Kent Mills, Esq.

2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH Doc # 75 Filed 03/31/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 631
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Deborah S. Hunt 

Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 

Tel. (513) 564-7000 

www.ca6.uscourts.gov

 Filed: December 18, 2012 

Ms. Jeanmarie Miller 

Ms. Margaret A Nelson 

Office of the Michigan Attorney General 

Public Employment & Elections Division 

P.O. Box 30736 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Ms. Lisa C. Ward 

2164 University Park Drive, Suite 260F 

Okemos, MI 48864 

 Re: Case No. 11-1828, Dye, et al v. Office of the Racing Comm’n, et al

Originating Case No. : 2:09-cv-13048 

Dear Counsel, 

 The court today announced its decision in the above-styled case. 

 Enclosed is a copy of the court's opinion together with the judgment which has been entered 

in conformity with Rule 36, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 Yours very truly, 

 

 Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk 

 

 Cathryn Lovely 

Deputy Clerk 

cc: Mr. David J. Weaver 

Enclosures 

Mandate to issue. 

 Case: 11-1828 Document: 006111534374 Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 1 2:09-cv-13048-NGE-MAR Doc # 60 Filed 12/18/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1339 (1 of 47)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1828

JEFF DYE, TAMMIE ERSKINE, PATRICK

HALL, and ERIC PERTTUNEN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

OFFICE OF THE RACING COMMISSION;

CHRISTINE WHITE, individually and in her

official capacity as Racing Commissioner; and

GARY POST, individually and in his official 

capacity as Deputy Commissioner,

Defendants - Appellees.

Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

THIS CAUSE was heard on the record from the district court and was argued by counsel.

IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ORDERED that the district court’s judgment on

Dye’s protected-speech and political-affiliation claims, and on each steward’s political-affiliation

retaliation claims based on the loss of the banked-time system is REVERSED. IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED that the judgment on Erskine, Hall, and Perttunen’s protected-speech retaliation claims

and on each of the stewards’ remaining political-affiliation claims is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

 Case: 11-1828 Document: 006111534373 Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 1 2:09-cv-13048-NGE-MAR Doc # 60 Filed 12/18/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1340 (47 of 47)
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10948

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN MARTINEZ, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-47-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Martinez, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation

of his supervised release. He contends that after United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release

are reviewed under the reasonableness standard. Further, he argues that the

sentence imposed above the recommended range was unreasonable in light of

the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the district court failed to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10948

2

articulate any reasons for imposing the sentence. Because Martinez did not

object in the district court to the reasonableness of his sentence or to the district

court’s failure to state reasons for the sentence imposed, review is for plain error.

See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007).

The district court sentenced Martinez to 18 months of imprisonment.

Martinez’s sentence, while in excess of the 5 to 11-month range indicated by the

policy statements, was within the 24-month statutory maximum term of

imprisonment that the district court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3559(a)(3), 3583(e)(3); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846; U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).

Therefore, Martinez’s sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly

unreasonable, and he has not shown plain error. See Jones, 484 F.3d at 786,

792. Further, even if the district court’s failure to articulate reasons for the

sentence imposed constituted plain error, Martinez has failed to show that the

error affected his substantial rights because the 18-month sentence was

supported by the record and not contrary to law. See United States v. IzaguirreLosoya, 219 F.3d 437, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2000). Finally, any error in failing to

articulate reasons for the sentence imposed would not affect the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. See id. at 442.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.