alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15378

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20334-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GLENTON ANTHONY PETERKIN, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 24, 2017)

Before HULL, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Glenton Peterkin argues that the district court erred by using two Florida 

convictions to enhance his sentence for being a career offender under U.S.S.G. 

Case: 15-15378 Date Filed: 04/24/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

§ 4B1.2. But the arguments are squarely foreclosed by this Court’s prior published 

opinions. Mr. Peterkin’s career offender enhancement is unaffected by the

Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 

(2015), because vagueness principles do not apply to the advisory Sentencing 

Guidelines. See Beckles v. United States, __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 886, 890 (2017); 

United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1190 (11th Cir. 2015). And his Florida 

convictions that supported the enhancement—for robbery (Fla. Stat. 

§ 812.13(1)) and aggravated assault (Fla. Stat. § 784.021)—remain qualifying 

predicates under § 4B1.2. See United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238, 1240–46 

(11th Cir. 2011) (robbery conviction under § 812.13(1) qualifies as crime of

violence); Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th 

Cir. 2013) (aggravated assault conviction under § 784.021 qualifies as crime of 

violence). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-15378 Date Filed: 04/24/2017 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                  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

            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand
Capital Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

            The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2005 (the Form10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

      Dated: August 4, 2005

                                                  /s/ Allen F. Grum
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  Allen F. Grum, President
                                                  (Chief Executive Officer)

      Dated: August 4, 2005

                                                  /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer
                                                    (Chief Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21524]



[[Page 53883]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Amended Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Advisory General Medical Sciences Council, September 18, 2008, 8:30 
a.m. to September 19, 2008, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 
Natcher Building, Conference Rooms E1 & E2, 9000 Rockville Pike, 
Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on 
August 21, 2008, 73 FR 49468-49469.
    The meeting will be open to the public on September 19, 2008 from 
8:30 a.m. to adjournment. The meeting is partially closed to the 
public.

    Dated: September 9, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-21524 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
exv10w11



 











EXHIBIT 10.11




Summary of Revised Director Compensation Structure for Non-Employee Directors




     On October 19, 2004, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,
based upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, approved a revised compensation
structure for non-employee directors. The new compensation structure is effective July 1, 2004,
which is the date the Compensation Committee originally recommended the changes to the Board for
its consideration.



     Under the new structure, the Chairman of the Board will receive a quarterly retainer of $7,500
and all other non-employee directors will receive a quarterly retainer of $5,000. All non-employee
directors will receive an annual grant of 3,500 shares of restricted common stock and 10,000
options. The restrictions on the stock lapse three years from the date of grant and the options
vest one-half immediately and one-half after one year. Non-employee directors will also receive a
quarterly fee of $1,000 for each committee assignment (the “Committee Fee”). In addition,
the Chairman of the Audit Committee will receive a quarterly fee of $2,000, and the Chairmen of the
Corporate Governance and Nominating and Compensation Committees will each receive a quarterly fee
of $1,250. Directors are also reimbursed for travel and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred by
them that are incidental to Board and committee meeting attendance.
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 52

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating

to school prayer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 2001

Mr. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to school prayer.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 52 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to

3 prohibit individual prayer in public schools or to prohibit

4 public school officials from including voluntary prayer in

5 official school ceremonies and meetings. Neither the

6 United States nor any State shall prescribe the content

7 of any such prayer.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.5

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

I, Thomas M. OFlynn, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of Public Service Electric and Gas Company 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 Electric and Gas Company.





|/s/ Thomas M. OFlynn                  
|---------------------------------------
|Thomas M. OFlynn                      
|Public Service Electric and Gas Company
|Chief Financial Officer                
|August 1, 2008                         











---
The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4074

___________

William J. Reed, *

 Plaintiff-Appellant, *

 v. *

Junior College District of St. Louis, St. * Appeal from the United States

Louis County, Missouri; doing * District Court for the

business as St. Louis Community * Eastern District of Missouri.

College at Florissant Valley; Mary C. *

Brewster; Janice Wells-White; Joann * [UNPUBLISHED]

L. Ordinachev; Julia K. Muller; *

Lawrence D. Shayer; John A. Wright, *

 Defendants-Appellees. *

*

*

*

*

*

*

___________

Submitted: May 12, 1998

Filed: June 1, 1998

___________

Before BEAM and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and MELLOY , District Judge. 1

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

2

District of Missouri.

-2-

William Reed filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Junior

College District of St. Louis and the members of the board of trustees in their individual

capacities, when his contract to serve as campus police chief was not renewed. He

alleged that the failure to renew violated his first amendment rights, his procedural due

process rights, the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act, R.S.Mo. § 536.150, and his

contractual rights. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants on the first amendment

claim after the district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants 2

on the other claims. Reed now raises no issue related to his first amendment claim but

appeals from the judgment dismissing his other causes of action. Based on our review

of the record we affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. Civil No. 05-cv-357-SM

Merrimack County Attorney

O R D E R

Plaintiff having taken advantage of the opportunity to file

an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and after due

consideration of the objection filed, and reconsideration of the

matter de novo, I herewith again approve the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated January 27,

2006, for the reasons set forth therein. Plaintiff’s complaint

is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

March 31, 2006

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00357-SM Document 12 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-101-PB

Kevin Corson 

O R D E R

The court finds reasonable cause to believe that the

defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease that

could affect his competency to plead guilty or stand trial. At

the direction of the court, counsel has filed a motion for

psychological evaluation, seeking permission for Dr. Brian

Jackson to evaluate the defendant’s mental competency. 

Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241, 4247, and with the

consent of the parties, the request is granted. Dr. Jackson

shall conduct the examination and prepare a report to be filed

under seal within 45 days addressing the defendant’s competency. 

This report shall also take into account any medications the

defendant is currently taking.

Case 1:05-cr-00101-PB Document 17 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 ____________________________

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 20, 2005

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Joseph LaPlante, AUSA

United States Probation

United Sates Marshal 

Case 1:05-cr-00101-PB Document 17 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Warren Picard

V .

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections, et al .

Case No. 05-cv-234-S M

ORDE R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated October 21, 2005, no objection having been filed. Plaintiff's

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Richards (Count II)

and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Raymond and

Richards (Counts II and III) will proceed . All other remaining claims are hereby

dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

November 18, 2005

St en J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Warren Picard, pro se

Carolyn M . Kirby, Esq .

Case 1:05-cv-00234-SM Document 19 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6130

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

kPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH MCKINSEY BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00458-ELH-1)

Submitted: June 29, 2021 Decided: July 2, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph McKinsey Brown, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph McKinsey Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 

without prejudice his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3852(c)(1)(A). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “[D]ismissals without 

prejudice generally are not appealable ‘unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate 

that no amendment . . . could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Bing v. Brivo Sys., 

LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers 

Loc. Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993)), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021). 

By denying Brown’s motion without prejudice for lack of evidence regarding the severity 

of Brown’s asthma, the district court indicated that additional facts could be added to 

Brown’s motion, and the language the district court used in denying the motion did not 

indicate that it “was finished with the case.” Id. at 612. Furthermore, Brown’s appeal does 

not indicate his intent to stand on his initial motion. See id. We therefore conclude that 

the district court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory order.

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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 16, 2012 *

Decided May 22, 2012

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION

, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 11

‐ 3551

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

ALDEGUNDO GONZALEZ

‐ QURIOZ,

Defendant

‐ Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 11

‐ CR

‐ 00072

Barbara B. Crabb,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Aldegundo Gonzalez

‐ Qurioz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after having

previously been removed, 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court adopted the guidelines

imprisonment range of 30 to 37 months (based on an offense level of 17 and criminal history

category of III) from the presentence investigation report and sentenced Gonzalez

‐ Qurioz to

30 months. Gonzalez

‐ Qurioz filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer seeks to

withdraw on the ground that all possible claims are frivolous. See Anders v. California

, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Gonzalez

‐ Qurioz has not responded to counsel’s motion. See C IR

. R. 51(b). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

34(a)(2)(C).Page 2

We confine our review to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief.

See United States v. Schuh

, 289 F.3d 968, 973–74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Gonzalez

‐ Qurioz has told counsel that he does not want his guilty plea set aside, so

counsel properly omits any discussion about the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the

voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox

, 287 F.3d 667, 670–72 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel considers whether Gonzalez

‐ Qurioz could challenge his sentence but

properly concludes that such a challenge would be frivolous. Counsel cannot identify any

reason to disregard the presumption that a within

‐ guidelines sentence is reasonable, see Rita

v. United States

, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Pape

, 601 F.3d 743, 746 (7th Cir.

2010). The district court properly evaluated the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In

imposing a within

‐ range sentence, the judge acknowledged Gonzalez

‐ Qurioz’s personal

history and characteristics, see id. § 3553(a)(1)—that he returned to the United States to earn

money so he could better provide for his family, but also that he had illegally reentered

multiple times and had several recent criminal convictions.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. 05-cr-64- 01-SM

Timothy Tremblay

ORDER

Re: Document No. 22, Motion to Continue Trial

Ruling: Granted. Understanding that the government is

satisfied that yet another continuance is warranted due to the

defendant’s apparent poor health, still, the motion filed by

defendant is vague in the extreme and discloses nothing about the

actual conditions afflicting defendant. The record ought to be

clear if, indeed, defendant suffers from medical conditions that

genuinely preclude going forward. Defendant, within 10 days of

this order, shall file a supplemental disclosure identifying

precisely what conditions currently warrant a continuance, what his

attending physicians’ prognoses are, and when he anticipates being

physically capable of proceeding. 

 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: July 24, 2006

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00064-SM Document 23 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-258-B

Jessica Shepard

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. The defendant has violated her conditions of

bail. The court finds that the defendant changed her address

twice without notification, traveled to Massachusetts without

authorization, and recently tested positive for marijuana. She

has a longstanding history of substance abuse. Given the number

of failed opportunities to comply with conditions the court find

that the defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or

combination of conditions. The conditions of release are

revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

Case 1:05-cr-00258-PB Document 12 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 2
2

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

February 28, 2006

cc: James W. Dennehy, Esquire

William E. Morse, Esquire

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00258-PB Document 12 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 2
#### ST. CLAUDE LUMBER CO., Inc. (in Receivership), Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Peter J. GUARINO, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14187.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 21, 1935.

M. C. Scharff, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Neil A. Armstrong, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This suit was brought by the St. Claude Lumber Company, through its receiver, Emile P. Reuter, claiming $157.90 on an open account for lumber sold and delivered to the defendant. Recognition of a materialman’s lien for the amount sued for upon the premises 1240 Columbus street, New Orleans, was prayed for.

The defendant admitted owing for the lumber, but claimed that the sum demanded was excessive.

There was judgment below in favor of plaintiff as prayed for, and defendant has appealed.

In this court the matter was submitted without argument and without brief on behalf of defendant. The transcript clearly establishes plaintiff’s claim in the amount sued for, the defendant having failed to prove any error in the account.

Under the circumstances the judgment appealed from will be, and it is, affirmed.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-215-PB 

Christopher Stallings, et al.

O R D E R

Defendant Stallings has moved to continue the November 7,

2006 trial in the above case citing the need for additional time

to review new discovery and pursue plea negotiations. The

government and all co-defendants do not object to a continuance

of the trial date. 

For the above reason and to allow the parties additional

time to properly prepare for trial, the court will continue the

trial date from November 7, 2006 to February 6, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 60 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on January

18, 2007 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 2, 2006

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

William Christie, Esq.

R.P. Cornelius, Esq.

William T. Cornelius, Esq.

Paul Pappas, Esq.

Michael Smith, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 60 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 04-cr-221-PB

Curt Hernandez

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the September 7, 2005 

trial in the above case as the parties have executed a plea

agreement and scheduled the matter for a plea hearing on October

27, 2005. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to finalize the plea or properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from September 7, 2005 to December 6,

2005. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

The August 22, 2005 final pretrial conference is cancelled. 

Case 1:04-cr-00221-PB Document 19 Filed 08/14/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 14, 2005

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:04-cr-00221-PB Document 19 Filed 08/14/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Pearl MANDY, a Widow, as Heir at Law of Mariah Benjamin, Deceased, Appellant, v. E. J. LOVETT and Bessie Lovett, His Wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 22, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.