alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3538

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jennifer Mares-Flores

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: March 18, 2024

Filed: March 28, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jennifer Mares-Flores apppeals after the district court1 revoked her supervised

release and sentenced her to 8 months in prison and 24 months of supervised release. 

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.
Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the

revocation sentence.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in sentencing Mares-Flores, as it properly considered the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor,

or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence

was within the advisory Guidelines range and below the statutory limit. See 18

U.S.C. § 3583 (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years for Class C felony); 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (maximum supervised release term is life); United States v.

Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of

revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see

also United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court

need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant upon

revocation; all that is required is consideration of relevant matters and some reason

for court’s decision).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
EXHIBIT 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code

I, Ralph Izzo, Chief Executive Officer
of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the
Quarterly Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated.

|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ralph Izzo                              
|Ralph Izzo                                  
|Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
|Chief Executive Officer                     
|August 1, 2008                              











---
#### PCB Piezotronics, Respondent-Appellant, v Nicholas D. Change et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Trial courts have broad discretion in supervising disclosure and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, their determinations should not be disturbed *(see, Matter of U.S. Pioneer Elees. Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp.],*47 NY2d 914; *Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 406; *Nitz v Prudential-Bache Sec.,*102 AD2d 914, 915). We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s *830direction that certain product documents be produced for discovery in this action for infringement of trade secrets, breach of contract and unfair competition. We conclude, however, that the court’s order should be modified in two respects. First, although documents pertaining to common customers and suppliers were to be produced under a prior order, the court, without explanation, omitted those items from the subject order. The items are discoverable *(see, Durham Med. Search v Physicians Intl. Search,*122 AD2d 529), and we perceive no reason to withhold discovery at this time. Second, the trial court denied plaintiffs application for discovery of certain drawings, designs and products in defendants’ possession or control without prejudice to further discovery requests. The court also directed, however, that any future applications for discovery be supported by technical expertise emanating from a source other than plaintiffs attorney or employees. In our view, this restriction impermissibly denies plaintiff its procedural right to demonstrate the materiality and necessity of documents for discovery purposes *(see,*CPLR 3101 [a]). The court may, as it has in the past, rely upon the recommendation of a neutral expert in deciding whether to grant discovery of trade secrets, but it may not preclude plaintiff from submitting its own expert material in support of the discovery application. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—discovery.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Allcomp, Incorporated, a California corporation, having a place of business at 209 Puente Avenue, City of Industry, California 91746-2304 an exclusive license in any right, title and interest the Air Force has in: 

U.S. Patent No. 6,309,703, issued 30 October 2001, entitled “Carbon and Ceramic Matrix Composites Fabricated by a Rapid Low-Cost Process Incorporating In-Situ Polymerization of Wetting Monomers,” by Phillip G. Wapner, Wesley P. Hoffman and Steven Jones.

# DATES:

A license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Written objection should be sent to: Air Force Material Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, Building 11, room D18, 2240 B Street, Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109. Telephone: (937) 255-2838; Facsimile (937) 255-7333. 

Bao-Anh Trinh, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-20880 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 700 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in Elwood, Illinois, as the ‘‘Lawrence M. ‘Larry’ Walsh Sr. Post Office’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 700 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LAWRENCE M. ‘‘LARRY’’ WALSH SR. POST OF2 FICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in 

5 Elwood, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Lawrence M. ‘Larry’ Walsh Sr. Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lawrence M. ‘Larry’ 

11 Walsh Sr. Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6172** 

ROBIN VIRGINIA MEADOWS COLLINS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
PAT GREEN; ELLIOTT PANNELL; H. M. EDWARDS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. ( 5:14

- ct

- 03111

- D )

Submitted : June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robin Virginia Meadows Collins , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Robin Virginia Meadows Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil rights
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. This court may exercise jurisdiction only o ver final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 47 (1949). Because the
deficienc ies i dentified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order
Collins seek s to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order

. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Loc al Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064 , 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argu ment would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

2
#### Manuel Rivera et al., Respondents, v Carol Revzin, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Appeal unanimously dismissed as moot without costs *(see, Rivera v Revzin,*163 AD2d 896 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—renewal/reargument.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-046
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements
     made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
     made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD
                              FORM 10-Q
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
BALANCE SHEET

(Dollars in Thousands)

                                             September 30   December 31
                                                 1997           1996   

ASSETS
     <S>                                          <C>            <C>
     Rentals receivable under capital lease       $9,150         $9,150
     Cash                                             35             24

                                                  $9,185         $9,174
     

LIABILITIES and SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

     Liabilities:
          Accounts payable and
            accrued liabilities                   $   19         $   18

     Shareholder's equity:

          Shares of beneficial interest, at
            no par value, 1,510,000 shares
            issued and outstanding                 9,145          9,145
          Income retained in business                 21             11

               Total Shareholders' Equity          9,166          9,156

               Total Liabilities and
                 Shareholders' Equity             $9,185         $9,174

</TABLE>
No. 72-6065.

#### Crowder *v.*Harris, Warden.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 177 (Thursday, September 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21072]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Federal Management Regulation (FMR); Motor Vehicle Management; 
Notice of GSA Bulletin FMR B-20

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services 
Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Notice of a bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: This bulletin provides a deviation for executive agencies to 
purchase premium fuel for Government owned and leased vehicles when 
lower grade fuels are not available due to market shortages in 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas due to the flooding and 
damage from Hurricane Gustav. GSA Bulletin FMR B-20 may be found at 
www.gsa.gov/bulletin.

DATES: The bulletin announced in this notice became effective on August 
31, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact 
General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, 
Office of Travel, Transportation and Asset Management, at (202) 501-
1777. Please cite Bulletin FMR B-20.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The Federal Management Regulation (FMR), Subpart B, section 102-
34.335 (41 CFR 102-34.335), requires drivers to use the grade (octane 
rating) of fuel recommended by the motor vehicle manufacturer when 
fueling motor vehicles owned or leased by the Government. Present 
restrictions prohibit the use of premium grade fuel in motor vehicles 
owned or leased by the Government that will operate on a lower grade of 
fuel.
    As a result of the damage caused by Hurricane Gustav, executive 
agencies may encounter fuel shortages in the affected areas and may not 
be able to acquire lower grade fuel for their vehicles to complete 
their missions. The original intent of section 102-34.335 was to reduce 
fuel costs and the unnecessary use of premium fuel in vehicles capable 
of being operated on lower grade fuel. This bulletin, B-20, provides a 
deviation for executive agencies to purchase premium fuel for 
Government owned and leased vehicles when lower grade fuels are not 
available due to market shortages in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
and Texas due to the flooding and damage from Hurricane Gustav.

B. Procedures

    Bulletins regarding motor vehicle management are located on the 
Internet at www.gsa.gov/bulletin as Federal Management Regulation 
bulletins.

    Dated: September 3, 2008
Becky Rhodes,
Deputy Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-21072 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-S
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,317]


Union Carbide Corporation a Subsidiary of the Dow Chemical 
Company, West Virginia Operations, South Charleston Technology Park, 
South Charleston, WV; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    On August 21, 2008, the Department of Labor (Department) received a 
request for administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers 
of the subject firm.
    The negative ATAA determination was issued on July 18, 2008, and 
the Department's Notice of determination was published in the Federal 
Register on July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44283). The subject workers are 
engaged in activities (research and development) related to the 
production of various chemicals.
    The negative ATAA determination was based on the Department's 
findings during the initial investigation that conditions within the 
workers' industry are not adverse.
    In the request for reconsideration, workers alleged that 
``employment in the chemical industry for the state of West Virginia 
and our workers' region (Kanawha County) is adverse.'' The request 
included employment statistics for the chemical industry in Kanawha 
County (West Virginia) and for West Virginia.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and has determined that the Department will conduct 
further investigation.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of August 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-20348 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Blas Suardy, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J., at omnibus suppression hearing; Alfred Kleiman, J., at bench trial and sentence), rendered December 21, 1987, convicting defendant of two counts of robbery in the first degree, two counts of robbery in the second degree, 12 counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 9 to 18 years on the first two counts, 7 Vi to 15 years on the second two counts and 2 to 4 years on the remaining 13 counts, is unanimously affirmed.

*86Defendant’s conviction, after trial, of the gunpoint robbery of two women, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Each of the victims identified defendant at trial and at separate lineups conducted the day after the crime. Each of the victims also recognized several items of personal property that the police recovered from a plastic bag when defendant was arrested. Both victims said that the barrel of the weapon recovered from defendant looked like the one he used in the robbery.

Defendant’s motion to suppress his statements and the gun recovered from him was properly denied. At the hearing, the officer said that he saw the butt of a revolver in defendant’s hand. As the officer was slowly driving by, defendant hurriedly put the weapon into a leather case. We do not find that the officer’s testimony was "manifestly untrue”. Credibility is always an issue at a suppression hearing *(People v Smith,*77 AD2d 544), and this court has not hesitated to reject testimony that has been manifestly tailored to avoid Fourth Amendment objections *(cf., People v Addison,*116 AD2d 472). However, we find no basis to disturb the hearing court’s determination of credibility.

Defendant’s statement that a nearby garbage bag belonged to him was also properly not suppressed because the officer’s inquiry was not "interrogation”, but solely to "clarify the nature of the situation” *(People v Huffman,*41 NY2d 29, 34). In any event, any error was harmless. The personal property that was found in the plastic bag would have been inevitably discovered. The officer observed defendant looking through the bag when he first spotted defendant.

We are also satisfied that the lineups were not suggestive because the witnesses knew that property had been recovered and that the police had a suspect in custody *(cf., People v Rodriguez,*64 NY2d 738, 740). Even if the witnesses recognized that the property could be connected to one of the persons exhibited to them, this did not serve to single defendant out from among the standins. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.