alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3385

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Alvaro L. Velasco, * District of Nebraska.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: June 26, 2008

Filed: June 27, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alvaro L. Velasco appeals the 60-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute and distributing

50 grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the following

reasons, we affirm.
-2-

First, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in not applying a

safety-valve exception to Velasco’s mandatory minimum prison sentence, because--

although Velasco admitted the basic facts of his offense at his plea hearing--he stated

that he was not seeking safety-valve relief, did not object to the omission of safetyvalve relief, and declined to participate in a safety-valve interview. See United States

v. Guerra-Cabrera, 477 F.3d 1021, 1025 (8th Cir. 2007) (defendant must do more than

disclose basic facts of crime to merit safety-valve relief); United States v. Pirani, 406

F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (discussing plain-error review); see also 18

U.S.C. § 3553(f) (listing requirements for defendant to qualify for safety-valve relief,

including, inter alia, truthfully providing government all information and evidence

defendant has concerning offense); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a) (same).

Second, we conclude that Velasco’s prison sentence of 5 years, the statutory

minimum, cannot be deemed unreasonable because Velasco did not qualify for safetyvalve relief, and the government did not move for a departure based on substantial

assistance. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting

that only authority for district court to depart from statutory minimum sentence is

found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government moves for

departure based on substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for safety-valve

relief); see also United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), “does not relate to statutorily-imposed

sentences”).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to

withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21903]


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

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

12 CFR Part 1231

RIN 2590-AA08


Golden Parachute Payments and Indemnification Payments

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Agency.

ACTION: Correcting Amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to Sec. Sec.  1231.3 and 
1231.4 of the interim final regulation concerning Golden Parachute 
Payments and Indemnification Payments published in the Federal Register 
on Tuesday, September 16, 2008. These sections should read 
``Reserved.''

DATES: Effective Date: September 19, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel 
(OFHEO), telephone (202) 414-3788 or Christopher Curtis, General 
Counsel (FHFB), telephone (202) 408-2802 (not toll-free numbers), 
Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20552. The telephone number for the Telecommunications 
Device for the Deaf is (800) 877-8339.

Need for Correction

    As published on September 16, 2008, the interim final regulation 
contained clerical errors, which these amendments correct.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1231

    Golden Parachutes, Government-Sponsored Enterprises, 
Indemnification.

0
Accordingly, part 1231 of Title 12 CFR Chapter XII is corrected by 
making the following correcting amendments:

PART 1231--GOLDEN PARACHUTE PAYMENTS AND INDEMNIFICATION PAYMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1231 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4518(e).


Sec.  1231.3   [Reserved]

0
2. Section 1231.3 is removed and reserved.


Sec.  1231.4   [Reserved]

0
3. Section 1231.4 is removed and reserved.

    Dated: September 15, 2008.
James B. Lockhart, III,
Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21903 Filed 9-16-08; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. JORDO N LOPEZ

- CAMACHO , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 16

- 0910 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2007

- 176667

- 002 The Honorable Joseph C. Welty , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent
Jordo n Lopez

- Camacho , Buckeye Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 12-12-2017STATE v. LOPEZ

- CAMACHO Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Jordo n Lopez

- Camacho seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's fifth petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for po st

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DILLON M. SALVO,

Defendant.

8:23CR119

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:

The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska is appointed to 

represent the above named defendant in this matter. In the event that the Federal 

Public Defender accepts this appointment, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith 

file an appearance in this matter. In the event the Federal Public Defender should 

decline this appointment for reason of conflict or on the basis of the Criminal Justice Act 

Plan, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith provide the court 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.

DATED this 19th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00119-BCB-MDN Doc # 10 Filed: 05/19/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 24
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer of Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, a
Maryland real estate investment trust (the Issuer), hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q (the Periodic Report) of the Issuer for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 which
accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m(a)) and that the information contained in the
Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer. Date: May 3, 2005 /s/ R. SCOT SELLERSR. Scot Sellers, Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

      I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive 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, 2006 (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/ E. James Ferland
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                    E. James Ferland
                                    Public Service Electric and Gas Company
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    August 1, 2006
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket Nos. EG08-71-000; EG08-72-000; EG08-73-000; EG08-74-000; FC08-3-000; FC08-4-000; FC08-5-000] 

Take notice that during the month of March 2008, the status of the above captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations 18 CFR 366.7(a). 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-20858 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of StemGen, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2020 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Simon Dawson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: June 10, 2020BY: /s/ Simon DawsonSimon DawsonCEO and Chairman of the Board  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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1The discovery deadline was November 2, 2006 and the case is

set for trial on December 5, 2006. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Winfried S. Faulring

v. Civil No. 05-cv-326-SM

R. Stahl, Inc. and

R. Stahl AG

O R D E R

 On October 6, 2006 plaintiff issued Notices of Depositions

to defendant R. Stahl, Inc. and R. Stahl AG executives for

depositions on October 23, 2006 (Erika Barragan and Wolfgang

Rothlaender), all in New Hampshire. The Motion for Protective

Order was filed on October 19, 2006.1 

Mr. Rothlaender is a German national who has never traveled

to the United States on business, is not employed directly or

indirectly by the U.S. entity and is not listed as a witness. He

is not key to the events surrounding plaintiff’s termination. He

stands on very different footing than did Dr. Voelker. If

plaintiff wants his deposition it will be taken by agreement in

Germany. As to Mr. Rothlaender the motion is granted. 

Plaintiff appears to have good reasons to depose Ms.

Case 1:05-cv-00326-SM Document 44 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 2
2If there are disputes about documents to be produced

counsel is to set them out in an expedited motion before lift off

or they will waive them. 

2

Barragan and Mr. Berner, both of whom are subject to deposition

in the United States. I exercise my discretion to order that the

depositions be taken in the next three weeks in Houston, the

corporate headquarters. Requiring defendant to fly two more

executives here versus the cost of flying one New Hampshire

attorney to Houston is not reasonable considering the relative

cost in time and money. Defendant is ordered to produce both

witnesses on the same hourly schedules as set out in the notices

and on a day within the next three weeks acceptable to

plaintiff’s counsel.2 

The motion (document no. 36) is granted as set forth above. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 7, 2006

cc: Edward M. Kaplan, Esq.

 Craig L. Staples, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00326-SM Document 44 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Baldi

v. 04-cv-466-PB

Broderick, et al.

ORDER

Re: Document No. 87, Objection to the Courts Order dated

4/20/06

Ruling: John Baldi objects to my most recent order in this

action and, among other things, he asks me to rescind my order

referring the Motion to Quash to the Magistrate Judge. I treat his

request as a motion to reconsider and deny the motion.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

Date: April 24, 2006

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 89 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1233

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize military recreational

facilities to be used by any veteran with a compensable service-connected

disability.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize military

recreational facilities to be used by any veteran with

a compensable service-connected disability.

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

3 SECTION 1. USE OF MILITARY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

4 BY VETERANS WITH COMPENSABLE SERVICE5 CONNECTED DISABILITIES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Chapter 54 of title 10, United

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing new section:
2

•HR 1233 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1066. Morale, welfare, and recreation facilities: use

2 by veterans with compensable service3 connected disabilities

4 ‘‘(a) DISABLED VETERANS.—A person who is a vet5 eran with a compensable service-connected disability (as

6 determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) shall be

7 permitted to use MWR recreation facilities on the same

8 basis as members entitled to retired pay.

9 ‘‘(b) DEPENDENTS.—Dependents of a person who is

10 permitted under subsection (a) to use MWR recreation fa11 cilities shall be permitted to use such facilities on the same

12 basis as dependents of members entitled to retired pay.

13 ‘‘(c) MWR RECREATION FACILITIES DEFINED.—In

14 this section, the term ‘MWR recreation facilities’ means

15 recreation facilities operated by nonappropriated fund ac16 tivities of the Department of Defense for the morale, wel17 fare, and recreation of members of the armed forces. Such

18 term does not include exchange stores and other revenue19 generating facilities operated by those activities.’’.

20 (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such

21 chapter is amended by adding at the end the following

22 new item:

‘‘1066. Morale, welfare, and recreation retail facilities: use by veterans with

compensable service-connected disabilities.’’.

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 1066 of title 10,

24 United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take
3

•HR 1233 IH

1 effect at the end of the 180-day period beginning on the

2 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### S. SHEMPER et al. v. W. S. SPEER.

No. 31749.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A.

May 27, 1935..

Heidelberg & Roberts, of Hattiesburg, for appellant.

Gex & Gex, of Bay St. Louis, and Currie & Currie, of Hattiesburg, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     Covance consolidated financial statements for the six months ended June
     30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
     statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001023131
<NAME>                        Covance Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1
<CURRENCY>                                             USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                          14,217,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  230,755,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                     27,575,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               344,187,000
<PP&E>                                         557,453,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 247,735,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 759,447,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          216,972,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           593,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     270,259,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   759,447,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               421,745,000
<CGS>                                          298,458,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  404,275,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (136,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,368,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,238,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,343,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,895,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,895,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.12


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11.1

                    COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE




                                             Three Months    Nine Months
                                                Ended          Ended
                                            September 30,   September 30,
                                                1997            1997
                                            -------------   -------------
Shares

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                         3,948,703        3,948,703
Additional shares assuming conversion of:
  Stock options and warrants                   197,567          143,029

Weighted average shares outstanding          4,146,270        4,091,732
                                            ==========       ==========

Net income                                  $  828,000       $2,913,000
                                            ==========       ==========

Primary earnings per share                  $     0.20       $     0.71
                                            ==========       ==========
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00178-CR

____________________

CHRISTOPHER MANUEL PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 18-329214 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On February 16, 2018, the trial court sentenced Christopher Manuel Perez on 

a conviction for possession of marijuana. Perez filed a notice of appeal on May 1, 

2018. The trial court signed a certification in which the court certified that this is a 

plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(a)(2). The district clerk has provided the trial court’s certification to the Court 

of Appeals. On May 3, 2018, we notified the parties that we would dismiss the appeal 

unless the appellant established grounds for continuing the appeal. No response has 
2

been filed. Because the trial court’s certification shows the defendant does not have 

the right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

 

Submitted on June 12, 2018

Opinion Delivered June 13, 2018

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.