alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*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 circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-11048

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KARAPET TER-VARTANYAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CR-118-R)

August 2, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Karapet Ter-Vartanyan appeals his conviction and sentence for unauthorized use of an access

device in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2). He argues that the district court erred in denying him

an offense-levelreduction for acceptance ofresponsibility in adding two pointsto his criminal history
2

score based on his having been on probation at the time he committed the instant offense, and in

providing no basis for its calculation of the monetary loss caused by his offense.

The government arguesthat, throughhis plea agreement,Ter-Vartanyanwaived any challenge

to his sentence. Although a defendant may, as part of his plea agreement, waive his statutory right

to appeal his sentence, see United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992), the

defendant’s waiver must be determined to be informed and voluntary based on the record of the

defendant’s plea colloquy. United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5thCir.), cert. denied, 115

S. Ct. 244 (1994). The government’s failure to submit into the record on appeal a copy of TerVartanyan’s plea colloquy, however, prevents this court from reviewing the government’s claim.

We have reviewed Ter-Vartanyan’s arguments and the record and find that the district court

did not clearly err in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. United States v. Watkins,

911 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1990). The court’s finding that Ter-Vartanyan was on probation at the

time he committed his offense was supported by evidence bearing sufficient indicia of reliability.

United States v. Mathei, 913 F.2d 1130, 1138 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Fike, 82 F.3d 1315,

1326 (5th Cir. 1996). Ter-Vartanyan did not raise his contention regarding loss-calculation before

the district court and has not shown plain error. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th

Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).

AFFIRMED.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Northrop Grumman Corporation ) ) Under Contract No. F33657-0l-C-4600 

### et al. ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59552
Terry L. Albertson, Esq. Stephen J. McBrady, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP Washington, DC E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Carson, CA ORDEROF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 9 March 2016

# ~/~**//~~** ··-····· - / MARK N. STEMPLER Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59552, Appeal ofNorthrop Grumman Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ADAM THOMAS, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR116 

ORDER 

 

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska. 

IT IS ORDERED that Peder C. Bartling is appointed as attorney of record for the 

above-named defendant in this matter and shall forthwith file an appearance in this 

matter. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender’s Office shall 

forthwith provide counsel with a draft appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the name 

and other identifying information of the CJA Panel attorney identified in accordance with 

the Criminal Justice Act Plan for this district. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to the 

Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska and Peder C. Bartling. 

 DATED this 1st day of August, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00116-RFR-MDN Doc # 9 Filed: 08/01/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 15
H. R. 700 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

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’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LAWRENCE M. ‘‘LARRY’’ WALSH SR. POST OFFICE. 

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

Service located at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in Elwood, Illinois, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lawrence M. ‘Larry’ Walsh 

Sr. Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lawrence M. ‘Larry’ Walsh Sr. Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**EXHIBIT 32.3**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFOPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Linens ‘nThings Center, Inc. for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert J. DiNicola, as Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Linens ‘n Things Center, Inc., and Francis M. Rowan, as Chief Financial Officer, each herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Linens‘n Things Center, Inc.
| /s/ Robert J.  DiNicola |                                               |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| **Name:**               | Robert J. DiNicola                                 |
| **Title:**              | Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer              |
| **Date:**               | November 14, 2006                                  |
| ** **              |                                               |
| ** **              |                                               |
| /s/ Francis M.  Rowan   |                                               |
| **Name:**               | Francis M. Rowan                                   |
| **Title:**              | Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
| **Date:**               | November 14, 2006                                  |
|                         |                                                    |  |

 

----
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Covance Inc. (“Covance”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph L. Herring, Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Covance.
| Date:  | July 31, 2007                                                |   |   |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|   |                                                         |   |
|        | /s/ Joseph L. Herring                                        |   |
|   |      Joseph L. Herring              |
|   |      Chairman of the Board  and     |
|   |      Chief Executive  Officer       |
|   |      (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Glenn AMBORT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-4117.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 18, 2003.

James Malone, Alan Hechtkopf, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard G. MacDougall, Scott Keith Wilson, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EBEL, KELLY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

Ernest Glenn Ambort appeals the district court’s ruling ordering appellant retained at a halfway house pending sentencing. Appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and sixty-nine counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). At the verdict hearing, appellant was given a choice by the district court between returning to the halfway house to which he had been committed pending trial and going to jail pending sentencing, which is *19scheduled for July 29, 2003. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. *See United States v. Storey,*2 F.3d 1037, 1040 (10th Cir.1993). “Appellate review of detention or release orders is plenary as to mixed questions of law and fact and independent, with due deference to the district court’s purely factual findings.” *United States v. Stricklin,*932 F.2d 1353, 1355 (10th Cir.1991).

Following appellant’s conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) requires that he “be detained” pending sentencing “unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c).” Appellant argues that the district court impliedly found that he was not a flight risk or a danger to the community because the district court allowed him to choose the halfway house instead of detention in the county jail, and complains that the district court failed to make findings in support of the conditions imposed upon him at the halfway house.

Appellant’s arguments are precluded by the doctrine of invited error. *See United States v. Burson,*952 F.2d 1196, 1203 (10th Cir.1991) (invited error doctrine “prevents a party who induces an erroneous ruling from being able to have it set aside on appeal”). At the time the verdict was announced, appellant specifically sought to remain at the halfway house, and did not object to the court’s granting him that request. The district court’s order denying appellant’s request for release pending appeal is AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 19, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10002 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TERINA RENAE BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CR-245-2-P

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Terina Renae Brown (“Brown”), federal inmate #30881-077, appeals the district court’s denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion for a reduction in her sentence. Brown received a stipulated sentence as permitted by F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(e)(1)(C). Because Brown’s sentence was imposed in accordance with Rule 11(e)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) does not apply. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion inNo. 03-10002 -2- denying Brown’s motion. United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                                 SIXTH AMENDMENT
                         TO THE JANUS CAPITAL GROUP INC.
            401(k), PROFIT SHARING AND EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

      The Janus Capital Group Inc. 401(k), Profit Sharing and Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, as restated effective November 1, 2001 (the "Plan") is hereby
amended as follows, effective March 28, 2005:

      1.    Section 7.07(b) of the Plan hereby is amended by deleting the
            current final paragraph thereunder, and replacing it with the
            following paragraph:

            Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a terminated Participant's total
            Vested Accrued Benefit does not exceed $1,000 (determined by taking
            in account the entire Vested Accrued Benefit, including the portion
            of the account balance that is attributable to rollover
            contributions and allocable earnings), such Participant's Vested
            Accrued Benefit automatically will be payable in a single sum to the
            Participant (or, in the event of the Participant's death, to his or
            her Beneficiary or Beneficiaries) as soon as reasonably practicable
            following the Participant's termination of employment without the
            Participant's consent (or any such Beneficiary's consent). The Plan
            Administrator may, in accordance with a policy that does not
            discriminate among Participants, establish periodic times when the
            Plan Administrator will direct the distribution of the automatic
            cash-outs described in this paragraph.

      2.    Except as amended above, the Plan shall remain in full force and
            effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Janus Capital Group Inc. has executed this Sixth
Amendment in Denver, as of this 10th day of March, 2005.

                                            Janus Capital Group Inc.

                                            By: /s/ Girard Miller
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Executive Vice President and
                                                Chief Operating Officer
ATTEST:
__________________
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1401 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1401

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
  loan payments received under the National Health Service Corps Loan 
    Repayment Program established in the Public Health Service Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. Phelps (for himself, Mr. Nethercutt, and Mr. Rush) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
  loan payments received under the National Health Service Corps Loan 
    Repayment Program established in the Public Health Service Act.

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

SECTION 1. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986; EXCLUSION FOR LOAN PAYMENTS 
              UNDER NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS LOAN REPAYMENT 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Loan Payments Under National Health Service Corps Loan 
Repayment Program.--Gross income shall not include any amount received 
under section 338B(g) of the Public Health Service Act.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to amounts received by an individual in taxable years beginning 
after December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
Order filed March 5, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 01055

- CV

____________ LEONARD WICKERS , Appellant

V.

AMERICAN SOUTHWEST I NSURANCE MANAGERS, I NC. D/B/A

STATEWIDE CLAIMS SERVICE , Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 07012



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due February 8, 2013

. No brief or motion for
extension of time has been filed. On February 12, 2013, appellee filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
Unless appellant submits a brief to the clerk of this court on or before March 20, 2013 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D22- 2309 LT Case No. 2021
- CF
- 1169

_____________________________ S HAWN S TACY S TEWART , Appella nt, v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee .

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns C ounty. R. Lee Smith, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and George D.E. Burden , Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. Novemb er 7, 2023 P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . L AMBERT , E ISNAUGLE , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not fin al until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven A. Swan

v. Case No. 06-cv-088-SM

Thomas P. Colantuono,

William E. Morse,

James W. Chapman, Jr.,

Roberta Keenan,

Donald Feith,

Paul J. Barbadoro,

and Unspecified Defendants

O R D E R

All of the judges in this district were recused from

presiding over this case. Accordingly, the case was transferred

to the District of Rhode Island.

The recusal of all of the judges on this court gives rise to

an “emergency” with respect to the transferred case as that term

is used in 28 U.S.C. § 636(f). I therefore concur in the

assignment of a Magistrate Judge from the transferee district to

perform the duties specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c).

SO ORDERED.

______________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

March 13, 2006

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

Clerk, USDC, Rhode Island

Case 1:06-cv-00088-ECT Document 3 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Concurring Order

I concur that an emergency exists as specified above and

that for the duration of this case Magistrate Judge _____________

is assigned to perform such duties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c)

as may be assigned to him by the District Judge to whom this case

is assigned.

______________________________

Chief Judge, Assignee District

Date:_________________________

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

Clerk, USDC, Rhode Island

Case 1:06-cv-00088-ECT Document 3 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

 QUAKER STATE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES                            EXHIBIT 11
 Computation of Net Income Per Share
 (in thousands except per share data, unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Quarter Ended             Six Months Ended
                                                                  6/30/98       6/30/97       6/30/98       6/30/97
  <S>                                                            <C>           <C>           <C>           <C> 
 ===================================================================================================================
  1.  Net income                                                 $   1,775     $   8,844     $   3,393     $  15,709
 ===================================================================================================================

  2.  Average number of shares of capital
      Stock outstanding--Basic                                      36,421        35,104        36,361        34,992

  3.  Shares issuable upon exercise of dilutive
      stock options outstanding during the period,
      Based on average market prices                                   815           226           546           164

  4.  Average number of capital and capital equivalent              37,236        35,330        36,907        35,156
      shares outstanding--Diluted (2 + 3)

  5.  Net income per capital and capital equivalent
      Share - Basic  (1 divided by 2)                            $    0.05     $    0.25     $    0.09     $    0.45
 ===================================================================================================================

  6.  Net income per capital share assuming full
      Dilution - Diluted (1 divided by 4)                        $    0.05     $    0.25     $    0.09     $    0.45
 ===================================================================================================================
</TABLE>


                                       17
Case 1:04-cr-00211-SM Document 0 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 1
* 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. 01-20340

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERNESTO SANCHEZ-GUITERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-762-1

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

December 27, 2001

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ernesto

Sanchez-Guiterrez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Sanchez has been provided a copy of counsel’s brief and motion

but has not filed a response. Our independent review of

counsel’s Anders brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.