alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), the undersigned officer of Medco Health Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |        |  |                                                           
|------------------- |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 1, 2006 |  | By:    |  | /s/ JoAnn A. Reed                                         
|                    |  | Name:  |  | JoAnn A. Reed                                             
|                    |  | Title: |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
#### MOFFITT v. BESSEMER PROPERTIES.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
J-A33020-15

 2016 PA Super 203

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

MARK WEBB, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR 

THE ESTATE OF SABINO WEBB, 

DECEASED

 Appellant

v.

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, 

VOLVO CARS CORPORATION, GRACO

CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS, INC. (D/B/T/A 

NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INC.), WILLIAM 

JULIAN, AND ANA (WEBB) SOARES

 Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 

 No. 1367 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 26, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Civil Division at No: 110500208

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

CONCURRING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2016

I agree with and join the Majority’s erudite disposition of this matter 

holding that Appellant is entitled to a new trial based on the trial court’s 

erroneous jury instruction. My joinder includes the Majority’s discussion of 

Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014). I write separately 

to note my position that, in light of the Majority’s holding, it is unnecessary 

and perhaps confusing to address the remaining issues on appeal. To say 

that an evidentiary ruling is not an abuse of discretion does not preclude the 

possibility that the opposite ruling also would not be an abuse of discretion. 

Therefore, I respectfully concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

LARRY JAMES RADY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-15297

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01294-FJM

D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00585-FJM-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frederick J. Martone, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued October 5, 2017

Submitted November 29, 2017

Pasadena, California

Before: MOTZ,

** M. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Larry James Rady appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to 

vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Reviewing the 

district court’s order de novo, see United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209

(9th Cir. 2012), we reverse.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Diana Gribbon Motz, United States Circuit Judge for 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

DEC 15 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

After Rady pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm and armed career criminal, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and the 

Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), the district court 

sentenced Rady to the ACCA’s fifteen-year minimum term of imprisonment 

because it concluded that Rady previously had been convicted of at least three 

violent felonies. In light of our opinion in United States v. Jones, No. 17-15869,

Rady’s convictions for armed robbery under Arizona law no longer qualify as 

violent felonies under the ACCA. 

The fact that Rady was convicted of armed robbery under an earlier version 

of Arizona’s robbery statutes1 does not compel a different result. As we noted in 

United States v. Molinar, Arizona courts have continued to rely on case law 

interpreting earlier robbery statutes to determine the degree of force necessary to 

commit robbery under the current statutes. No. 15-10430, 2017 WL 5760565, at 

*4 n.4 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2017). And in considering this case law ourselves, we 

have found it to indicate that the force that Arizona law requires is not sufficiently 

violent to satisfy the ACCA’s force clause. Id. at *4. Accordingly, for purposes of 

deciding whether Arizona armed robbery is a violent felony under the ACCA’s 

force clause, there is no material difference between the current version of 

Arizona’s robbery statutes and the version under which Rady was convicted.

 

1 Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-641 (1956) and 13-643 (1973).
3 

Without the armed robbery convictions, Rady does not have three violent 

felony convictions to trigger the ACCA’s fifteen-year minimum sentence. We 

therefore reverse the district court’s denial of Rady’s § 2255 motion and remand 

with instructions to proceed consistent with this disposition.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02753-RPM

ISSA H. A. CARSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTURA HEALTH CORPORATION, LITTLETON ADVENTIST HOSPITAL, 

 

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on February 28, 2012, at 11:30 a.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 11/11). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on February 23, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: January 19th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02753-RPM-KLM Document 8 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02626-CMA-MJW

SHAWN D. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BUENA VISTA CORRECTIONAL FAC.,

JOHNNY DAVIS,

GERALD KNAPIC, and

JAMES GRIGGS,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Case Without

Prejudice (Doc. # 28), filed pro se July 11, 2012. The Court having considered

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, hereby

ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: July 12 , 2012

BY THE COURT:

________________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Court Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02626-CMA-MJW Document 29 Filed 07/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61059-61063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24403]



[[Page 61059]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-92]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-92 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 61060]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15OC08.031


[[Page 61061]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15OC08.032


[[Page 61062]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15OC08.033


[[Page 61063]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15OC08.034

[FR Doc. E8-24403 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
30, 1996 QUARTERLY REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          12,040
<SECURITIES>                                     2,940
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,449
<PP&E>                                         121,441
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,042
<BONDS>                                         21,129
<COMMON>                                         2,350     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,367
<SALES>                                          2,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,826
<CGS>                                            1,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,203
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,648
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,555
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,555
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        

</TABLE>
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 6, 2008*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**R.103 Change in Net Worth of Nonfarm Noncorporate Business** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-51014

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

John Paul Lopez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:21-CR-107-1

______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

John Paul Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent 

to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a 

detectable amount of methamphetamine (count one) and one count of 

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (count two). 

See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He 

was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 188 months of imprisonment on 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 2, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-51014 Document: 00516843770 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2023
No. 22-51014

2

count one and 60 months of imprisonment on count two. The district court 

imposed a four-year term of supervised release on count one, to run 

concurrently with a three-year term of supervised release on count two.

Lopez challenges the condition of his supervised release that provides 

that, if the probation officer determines that Lopez presents a risk to another 

person, the probation officer may require Lopez to notify the person of that 

risk and may contact the person to confirm that notification occurred. While 

Lopez challenged this condition of supervised release at sentencing, he 

challenged it as unconstitutionally vague. He now argues that this condition 

constitutes an improper delegation of judicial authority to the probation 

officer. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our decision in United 

States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450, 452 (5th Cir. 2022), but he raises the 

issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an 

unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that Lopez’s claim is 

foreclosed by Mejia-Banegas. In the alternative, the Government requests an 

extension of time to file its brief.

We held in Mejia-Banegas that such a risk-notification condition did 

not impermissibly delegate judicial authority, plainly or otherwise. 32 F.4th 

at 451-52. The parties are thus correct that the issue is foreclosed, and the 

Government is correct that summary affirmance is appropriate. See 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The 

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the district 

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s alternative 

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

Case: 22-51014 Document: 00516843770 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2023
216 La. 760

#### KERR-McGEE OIL INDUSTRIES, Inc., et al. v. STATE MINERAL BOARD et al.

No. 39653.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1950.

■ ■ R. K.. Batten, Houston, Tex., Charles F. Bailey, La'fayette, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., Carroll Buck, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Madden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.

McCALEB, Justice.

This case was consolidated for all purposes with the suit of The Texas Company v. State Mineral Board et al., 216 La. 742, 44 So.2d 841. The decision in that matter controls here.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
#### STATE ex rel. THOMPSON v. MAYO.

Supreme Court of FlOrida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10314 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DEJUAN LAMONT WILLIS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12

- CR

- 1

- 1

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Deju a n Lamont Willis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Willis has filed a response. The recor d is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Willis ’s claims of ine ffective assistance of counsel; we theref ore decline to consider the claims without

* 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 June 20 , 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10314 Document: 00514040142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017No. 16

- 10314

2 prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief s and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Willis ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the ap peal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
See United States v. Pesina

- Rodriguez , 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, W illis’s motion to vacate sentence and remand for resentencing is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 16-10314 Document: 00514040142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1352 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1352

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, as the ``Dr. Francis 
                    Townsend Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2007

 Mr. Durbin (for himself and Mr. Obama) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, as the ``Dr. Francis 
                    Townsend Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DR. FRANCIS TOWNSEND POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Dr. Francis Townsend Post Office Building''.
    (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 ``Dr. 
Francis Townsend Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL E. HEGARTY

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02357-WYD-MEH Date: July 27, 2012

Courtroom Deputy: Cathy Coomes FTR – Courtroom A501

CS CAPITAL CORP., Andrew Toft

Plaintiff,

vs.

LOCAL SENIOR SERVICES, No appearances

RANDY KALANI FAHILGA, and

ILD CORP.,

Defendants.

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

MOTION HEARING 

Court in session: 10:49 a.m.

Court calls case. Appearance of counsel.

Argument and discussion regarding Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #50, filed 5/25/12). 

Mr. Toft is granted leave to file a supplement to his Motion for Default Judgment on or before

August 3, 2012. Mr. Toft moves to admit the exhibits attached to the motion.

ORDERED: Mr. Toft’s oral motion to admit exhibits is granted. The exhibits attached to the

Motion for Default Judgment are admitted.

The Court takes the motion under advisement.

Court in recess: 11:12 a.m. (Hearing concluded)

Total time in court: 0:23

Case 1:11-cv-02357-WYD-MEH Document 57 Filed 07/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 202 (Friday, October 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61795-61799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24452]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-90]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-90 with attached transmittal, and 
policy justification.

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 61796]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC08.028


[[Page 61797]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC08.029


[[Page 61798]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC08.030

[FR Doc. E8-24452 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
S. 1245

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To reform mutual aid agreements for the National Capital Region.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REFORM OF MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS FOR THE 

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION. 

Section 7302 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 5196 note) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘, including its agents 

or authorized volunteers,’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘or town’’ and all 

that follows and inserting ‘‘town, or other governmental 

agency, governmental authority, or governmental institution with the power to sue or be sued in its own name, 

within the National Capital Region.’’; 

(2) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘, the Washington Metropolitan Area 

Transit Authority, the Metropolitan Washington Airports 

Authority, and any other governmental agency or authority’’; 

and 

(3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘or employees’’ each place 

that term appears and inserting ‘‘, employees, or agents’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
216 La. 758

#### SHELL OIL COMPANY, Incorporated v. STATE MINERAL BOARD et al.

No. 39651.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Deb. 13, 1950.

George C. Schoenberger, Jr., Oliver L. Stone, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., Carroll Buck, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Madden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appel-lee.

McCALEB, Justice.

This case was consolidated for all purposes with the-suit of The Texas Company v. State Mineral Board et al., 216 La. 742, 44 So.2d 841. The decision in that matter controls here.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.