alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Richard A. ROK, Appellant.

No. 02-3181.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 29, 2003.

Decided Aug. 6, 2003.

Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.

*151OPINION OF THE COURT

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

Officer Richard Rok was charged with and pled guilty to violating the civil rights of an arrestee under 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits the deprivation of civil rights under color of law. The District Court sentenced Rok to 12 months imprisonment. Rok appeals, arguing that the District Court erred in not granting him a downward departure because, as a police officer, he is more susceptible to abuse in prison, and that the Court incorrectly determined that 12 months was the proper sentence. We will affirm.1

Rok argues that the District Court abused its discretion in not granting him a downward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b), U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, because he is a police officer and is therefore more susceptible to abuse in prison. Rok relies on *Koon v. United States,*518 U.S. 81, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996), in which the Supreme Court upheld a discretionary downward departure for the police officers who participated in the highly publicized beating of Rodney King, based on the assertion that the officers were more likely to be targets of abuse in prison. *Id.*at 112, 116 S.Ct. 2035. As the Court’s refusal to grant a departure appears to be based upon the legal *determination that Koon*did not apply to the situation before it, we may review the Court’s ruling for abuse of discretion, reviewing its legal conclusions *de novo. United States v. Marin-Castaneda,*134 F.3d 551, 554 (3d Cir.1998). We agree with the District Court that *Koon*does not apply here because Rok did not present any extenuating circumstances like those presented in *Koon,*beyond the mere fact that he was a police officer, that would form the basis for such abuse. The Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that this was not a sufficient basis for a departure.

Rok also challenges the District Court’s calculation of his sentence, contending that because the statutory maximum under § 242 is “not more than one year,” and his applicable guideline range was 12 to 18 months, the two provisions are conflicting, and the Court should have followed § 242 and imposed a sentence of *less than*one year. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s construction of the guidelines, *United States v. Higgins,*128 F.3d 138, 139 (3d Cir.1997), and find no merit in Rok’s contention, as his sentence of one year met the criteria of both the guideline range (12 to 18 months) and the statutory maximum (12 months).

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court.

1

. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction over the Court’s final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
EXHIBIT 11


                        National Presto Industries, Inc.
                                   Exhibit 11

The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the 1988 Stock Option Plan will be
exercised.

(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

                                                               First Quarter
                                                               -------------
                                                           1998            1997
                                                           ----            ----
Net Earnings (1)                                         $ 2,810         $ 2,579
                                                          ======================

Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)             7,355           7,353

Common share equivalents relating to stock options             1               1

Adjusted common and common equivalent                     ----------------------
   shares for computation (3)                              7,356           7,354
                                                          ======================

Net earnings per share:
     Basic (1/2)                                          $ 0.38          $ 0.35
                                                          ======================
     Diluted (1/3)                                        $ 0.38          $ 0.35
                                                          ======================
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

E L P ASO

FABIAN DOUGLAS CASTANEDA, )

) No. 08

- 12

- 00 167

- CR

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the 83rd District

vs. )

) Court of Pecos County, Texas

THE STATE OF TEXAS, )

) (TC# P

- 2377

- 83

- CR )

State. )

)

O R D E R

The Appellant’s brief in the above styled and num bered cause was due March 15, 2013,

the Court having granted an extension, on its own motion, until such date. However, as of this

date no brief or motion for extension of time has been filed.

It is therefore ORDERED that the trial judge conduct a hear ing to determine whether

appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, whether the appellant has been deprived of effective

assistance of counsel, and to make appropriate findings and recommendations. The trial judge

shall take such measures as may be necess ary to assure effective assistance of counsel, which

may include appointment of new counsel. The record of such hearing, including any orders and

findings of the trial judge, shall be certified and forwarded to this office on or before May 17,

2013

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 7 th day of April , 20 13

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera , and Rodriguez , JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10710 Summary Calendar

MARY F. HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:95-CV-115-C

- - - - - - - - - - January 22, 1997 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mary Hamilton appeals from the dismissal of her complaint for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision denying her application for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. Hamilton contends that the administrative law judge (ALJ) made inconsistent findings regarding her ability to do various jobs; that the ALJ erred by failing to order a consultative physical evaluation; and that the district court should have remanded herNo. 96-10710 - 2 - case to the Commissioner for findings on new evidence. Hamilton did not raise her contention that the ALJ made inconsistent findings before the Appeals Council. She failed to exhaust that contention in her administrative proceedings. Paul v. Shalala , 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994). Regarding Hamilton’s remaining contentions, we have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and we have found no reversible error. According, as to those contentions, we affirm for essentially the reasons relied on by the district court. See Hamilton v. Chater , No. 5:95-CV-115-C (N.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 1996). AFFIRMED.
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
SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerMarch
      23,
2010
* 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. 99-60205

Summary Calendar

__________________

RAUL O. PAZ-MUNOZ,

 Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A74-647-180

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

January 26, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul O. Paz-Munoz petitions this court to review an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal

seeking reversal of an order of deportation denying his

applications for political asylum and withholding of deportation. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs and determine that the

BIA’s denials of Paz-Munoz’s applications for asylum and 
No. 99-60205

-2-

withholding of deportation are supported by substantial evidence. 

Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994).

The petition for review is DENIED.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 EMILY PATTERSON,

3 Petitioner-Appellee,

4 v. No. 28,848

5 LEN LOPRESTO,

6 Respondent-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY

8 Mike Murphy, District Judge

9 Francisco Mario Ortiz

10 Las Cruces, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Bates Law Firm

13 Lloyd O. Bates, Jr.

14 Las Cruces, NM

15 for Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 KENNEDY, Judge.

18 Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

19 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

20 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

21 AFFIRMED.
2

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 __________________________________

3 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge

4 WE CONCUR:

5 _____________________________

6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

7 _____________________________

8 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 96-1315

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Joseph Anthony Petty, *

 * (PUBLISHED)

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 29, 1996

 Filed: May 6, 1996

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Anthony Petty appeals from the district court's order denying 1

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce the term of his imprisonment.

We conclude we lack jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district

court.

In 1991, Petty pleaded guilty to manufacturing sixty-seven marijuana

plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The district

court determined that under the applicable Sentencing Guidelines Petty was

a career offender subject to a sentencing range of 210 to 240 months

imprisonment, and sentenced him to 210 months imprisonment to be followed

by three years of
-2-

supervised release. In November 1995, Petty filed a section 3582(c)(2)

motion based on the November 1, 1995, retroactive amendments to U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(c), which changed the method of measuring marijuana for sentencing

purposes. On January 11, 1996, the district court entered its order

denying the motion, concluding that due to his career offender status,

Petty was subject to the same sentencing range both before and after the

retroactive amendments. On January 29, 1996, Petty filed a notice of

appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) provides in pertinent part:

In a criminal case, a defendant shall file the notice of appeal

in the district court within 10 days after the entry either of

the judgment or order appealed from . . . . Upon a showing of

excusable neglect, the district court may--before or after the

time has expired, with or without motion and notice--extend the

time for filing a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed

30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by

this subdivision.

We conclude that this rule applies to an appeal from the denial of

a section 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Ono, 72 F.3d 101, 102-03

(9th Cir. 1995); cf. United States v. Barney, 691 F.2d 855, 856 (8th Cir.

1982). As the filing of a timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and

jurisdictional, see United States v. Anna, 843 F.2d 1146, 1147 (8th Cir.

1988), and as Petty's appeal was filed more than ten days but fewer that

forty days after the entry of the district court's order, the question is

whether the time for filing the notice of appeal should be extended

pursuant to Rule 4(b). Accordingly, we remand the case to the district

court for the purpose of determining whether this is a case of excusable

neglect, and if so, whether Petty's time for filing a notice of appeal

should be extended. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b); Ana, 843 F.2d 1147-48.

In light of our remand, we dismiss Petty's pending motions as moot.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6883 

To prohibit certain aircraft associated with the Russian Federation from 

operating in the national airspace system. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2022 

Mr. GIMENEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain aircraft associated with the Russian 

Federation from operating in the national airspace system. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON RUSSIAN AIR CARRIERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, the Secretary of Transportation shall ensure 

6 that the following aircraft may not operate in the national 

7 airspace system: 

8 (1) A private aircraft listed by the Secretary of 

9 State pursuant to subsection (b). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6883 IH

1 (2) Any aircraft of a foreign air carrier, as such 

2 term is defined in section 40102 of title 49, United 

3 States Code, owned or operated by an entity orga4 nized under the laws of the Russian Federation, or 

5 any jurisdiction within the Russian Federation. 

6 (b) LIST OF PROHIBITED AIRCRAFT.—The Secretary 

7 of State shall compile a list of private aircraft that are— 

8 (1) owned by a citizen of the Russian Federa9 tion that is considered to be an oligarch, as deter10 mined by the Secretary; and 

11 (2) registered in a country other than the Rus12 sian Federation. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   <ARTICLE> 5
   <LEGEND>
   Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
   the Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in
   its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
   </LEGEND>
   <CIK>  0001029715
   <NAME>  Account Portfolios G.P. Inc.
          
   <S>                             <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
   <PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
   <PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
   <CASH>                                          28,124
   <SECURITIES>                                         0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                   23,789
   <ALLOWANCES>                                       850
   <INVENTORY>                                     47,913
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,328
   <PP&E>                                          81,845
   <DEPRECIATION>                                  54,545
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,234
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,981
   <BONDS>                                              0
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
   <PREFERRED>                                     11,699
   <COMMON>                                            53
   <OTHER-SE>                                           0
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,234
   <SALES>                                              0
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,663
   <CGS>                                                0
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                  206,958
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,950
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,245)
   <INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,626)
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,619)
   <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
   <CHANGES>                                            0
   <NET-INCOME>                                  (20,619)
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
           
<PAGE>

   
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20275]



[[Page 51277]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XK07


U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment 
Product Draft Report 4.2 ``Thresholds of Change in Ecosystems''

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes 
this notice to announce a 45-day public comment period for the draft 
report titled, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and 
Assessment Product 4.2``Thresholds of Change in Ecosystems.''
    This draft report is being released solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality 
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. 
It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any 
Agency policy or determination. After consideration of comments 
received on the draft report, a revised version along with the comments 
received will be published on the CCSP web site.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The draft Synthesis and Assessment Product: 4.2 is posted on 
the CCSP Web site at:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-2/default.php
    Detailed instructions for making comments on this draft report are 
provided on the CCSP web site. Comments must be prepared in accordance 
to these instructions and must be submitted to:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#15213b2738617d6770667d7a79715576797c7874617066767c707b76703b727a63"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="182c362a356c706a7d6b7077747c587b747175796c7d6b7b717d767b7d367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Fabien Laurier, Climate Change 
Science Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250, 
Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: (202) 419-3481.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP was established by the President in 
2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global change 
and climate change sponsored by 13 participating departments and 
agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing 
information resources that promote climate-related discussions and 
decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that 
support evaluation of important policy issues.

    Dated: August 25, 2008.
William J. Brennan,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and 
Director, Climate Change Science Program.
[FR Doc. E8-20275 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-12-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Citizens  Communications Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Jerry  Elliott,  Executive  Vice  President and Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (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/ Jerry Elliott
-----------------------------
Jerry Elliott
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
November 2, 2005


This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been  provided to Citizens  Communications  Company
and will be retained by Citizens  Communications  Company and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies this annual report on Form 10-K (the Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008 of Affinion Group, Inc.
(the Issuer).

In connection with the Form 10-K, each of the undersigned, Nathaniel J. Lipman and Todd H. Siegel, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of their knowledge:

(i) the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

(ii) the information contained in
the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer as of the dates and for the periods indicated in the Form 10-K.



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Nathaniel J. Lipman |  |  |  | /s/ Todd H. Siegel     
|Nathaniel J. Lipman     |  |  |  | Todd H. Siegel         
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|February 26, 2009       |  |  |  | February 26, 2009