alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4459

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus DARELL EUGENE JENKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00314-NCT) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John D. Bryson, WYATT EARLY HARRIS WHEELER, LLP, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney; Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Darell Eugene Jenkins pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2) (2000). Jenkins was sentenced to 54 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Jenkins’ sentence is reasonable. Jenkins was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so, and the Government elected not to file a responding brief. Jenkins contends his sentence is unreasonable. However, the district court appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the advisory guideline range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors. See United States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Jenkins’ 54-month sentence, which is no greater than the applicable guideline range and below the statutory maximum, is therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Green , 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see alsoRita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007) (approving presumption of reasonableness accorded sentences within properly calculated guideline range).- 3 - In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 19 - 00160 - CR

________________________ RAYMOND JOSEPH JARAMILLO , APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 320 th District Court Potter C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 56,256 - D ; Honorable Pamela Cook Sirmon , Presiding August 19 , 201 9 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE , JJ. P ending before this court is the Motion for Voluntary Dismiss al in Criminal Case of Appellant, Raymond Joseph Jaramillo , in which he moves to have his notice of appeal withdrawn and this appeal dismissed. In 2008, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon , 1 sentenced to fifteen years confinement, and assessed a

1 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2019 ).2

$10,000 fine. We affirmed his conviction in Jaramillo v. State , No. 07 - 08 - 00148 - CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 1781, at *16 (Tex. App. — Amarillo Mar. 13, 2009, no pe t.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In 2019, Appellant filed a Chapter 64 Motion for Comparison T

esting and a motion for appointment of counsel in the trial court pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On April 3, 2019 , the trial court signed an Order Denying Defendant’s Motions for Comparison Testing and Appointment of Counsel . Appellant appeal ed from the trial court’s order , proceeding pro se . As required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) , the motion to dismiss is si gned by Appellant. 2 No decision of this court having been delivered, the motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Per Curiam Do not publish.

2 In his motion to dismiss, Appellant request s leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus concerning the same subject matter as his appeal . He has filed the petition with this court. As l eave of court is not required to commence an original proceeding u nder Rule of Appellate Procedure 52, his pet ition for writ of mandamus has been filed and is pending in cause number 07 - 19 - 00287 - CV, In re Raymond Joseph Jamarillo , Relator

.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2881 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify the treatment 

of seasonal positions for purposes of the employer shared responsibility 

requirement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Ms. AYOTTE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify 

the treatment of seasonal positions for purposes of the 

employer shared responsibility requirement. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Simplifying Technical 

5 Aspects Regarding Seasonality Act of 2014’’ or the 

6 ‘‘STARS Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2881 IS

1 SEC. 2. SIMPLIFICATION OF SEASONAL RULES FOR PUR2 POSES OF EMPLOYER SHARED RESPONSI3 BILITY REQUIREMENT. 

4 (a) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE EXCEPTION FOR DETER5 MINING ASSESSABLE PAYMENT.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 

7 4980H(c) of such Code is amended by redesignating 

8 subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) and by in9 serting after subparagraph (A) the following new 

10 subparagraph: 

11 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION FOR SEASONAL EMPLOY12 EES.—Such term shall not include any seasonal 

13 employee.’’. 

14 (2) SEASONAL EMPLOYEE DEFINED.—Sub15 section (c) of section 4980H of such Code is amend16 ed by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as 

17 paragraphs (6), (7), and (8), respectively and by in18 serting after paragraph (4) the following new para19 graph: 

20 ‘‘(5) SEASONAL EMPLOYEE.—The term ‘sea21 sonal employee’ means an employee who is employed 

22 in a position for which the customary annual em23 ployment is not more than 6 months and which re24 quires performing labor or services which are ordi25 narily performed at certain seasons or periods of the 

26 year.’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2881 IS

1 (b) APPLICABLE LARGE EMPLOYER DETERMINATION

2 EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (B) of section 4980H(c)(2) 

3 of such Code is amended to read as follows: 

4 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION FOR SEASONAL EMPLOY5 EES.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), sea6 sonal employees shall not be taken into ac7 count.’’. 

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall take effect as if included in section 1513 

10 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                    495
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           1,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                8
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          507
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         10,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     320
<BONDS>                                   154
<COMMON>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                             10,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           10,499
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          210
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,183)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (1,183)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,183)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (40.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (40.60)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         836,904
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,133,463
<ALLOWANCES>                                   113,476
<INVENTORY>                                  1,925,306
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,221,094
<PP&E>                                       5,699,173
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,893,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,094,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,117,430
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,039
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,749,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,094,044
<SALES>                                      3,499,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,499,879
<CGS>                                        1,950,909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,950,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,423,120
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,930
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,930
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,930
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

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), each of the undersigned officers of Cardium Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 of
Cardium Therapeutics, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Cardium Therapeutics, Inc.



|                     |  |                                                 
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2010 |  | /s/ Christopher J. Reinhard                     
|                     |  | Christopher J. Reinhard, Chief Executive Officer
|                     | 
|Date: August 9, 2010 |  | /s/ Dennis M. Mulroy                            
|                     |  | Dennis M. Mulroy, Chief Financial Officer       

The foregoing
certification is furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or
as a separate disclosure document
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Rainbow International Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2012 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Donald Perks

Donald Perks

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

September 12, 2012
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: September 22, 2016 522039

________________________________ In the Matter of INJAH UNIQUE TAFARI, Also Known as RICHARDO ORLANDO FOUST, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TINA M. STANFORD, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Respondents.

________________________________ Calendar Date: August 8, 2016 Before: Lynch, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ.

__________ Injah Unique Tafari, Elmira, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of counsel), for respondents.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Koweek, J.), entered November 13, 2015 in Columbia County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner's motion to amend a prior order. Petitioner brought this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a September 2013 determination denying his request for parole release and, in June 2014, Supreme Court issued an order directing a de novo parole hearing. Petitioner was again denied parole release at the end of that hearing in September 2014. Petitioner sought to challenge this denial via a pro se motion to enforce the June 2014 order, but Supreme Court issued a February 2015 order denying that motion. Petitioner appealed the-2- 522039

February 2015 order, which this Court dismissed as moot given his May 2015 reappearance before the Board of Parole (Matter of Tafari v Stanford, 133 AD3d 1013 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 917 [2016]). While his appeal of the February 2015 order was pending, petitioner made a pro se motion to amend the June 2014 order. Before this motion was decided, the May 2015 determination denying him parole release was administratively reversed and a de novo parole hearing was conducted in August 2015 resulting in another denial of parole release. Petitioner supplemented his pro se motion accordingly. Supreme Court ultimately denied petitioner's motion to amend and petitioner now appeals. Based upon our review of the papers submitted by petitioner in connection with his pro se motion, it is evident that, although the motion is directed at the June 2014 order, petitioner is essentially seeking to challenge the September 2014 and August 2015 determinations denying him parole release. Petitioner was obliged to pursue such challenges through separate CPLR article 78 proceedings rather than through a motion to amend Supreme Court's June 2014 order (see Matter of Tafari v Stanford, 133 AD3d at 1013). Therefore, the motion was properly denied. Lynch, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
News United States Air Force
 Sandell sworn in as DAF Scientific Advisory Board ChairPublished March 16, 2022
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Dr. Nils Sandell was sworn in as the 24th Chair of the Department of the Air Force’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), March 11.

Dr. Sandell’s appointment was the culmination of a 13-month effort to restart SAB operations after a Department of Defense review directed by Secretary of Defense**Lloyd J. Austin**last year.

Austin directed a zero-based review of all DOD advisory committees. The review focused the Department’s advisory committee efforts to align with the most pressing strategic priorities and the **National Defense Strategy**.

The review, which included the immediate suspension of all advisory committee operations until the review was complete, included the Air Force’s SAB.

As part of the review, Secretary of the Air Force**Frank Kendall**recommended the board’s name change from the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board to the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, a change that recognizes the board’s support toboth of the Department’s services – the Air Force and the **Space Force**.

The SAB was first established in 1944 by**Gen. “Hap” Arnold**to assist the Air Force in gaining a “clear vision into the future” of technology-enabled capabilities. The board has provided a steady flow of independent scientific and technical advice to the Department’s leadership for over 75 years.

To learn more about the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, please visit**here**.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



swearing in 



Dr. Nils Sandell 



DAF Scientific Advisory Board 



readiness 



Senior Leaders 



SecDEF 



LLoyd Austin 



National Defense Strategy 



title change 



SecAF 



Frank Kendall 



24th chair
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4678-H4679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1145
        CUTTING MEDICARE IS THE WRONG WAY TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, let me say that this administration 
deserves a heck of a lot of credit. For the first time in two decades, 
we are doing something real to open up Japanese markets. Every time 
America has a better product, whether it be in automobiles or financial 
services or anything else, the Japanese come up with a million 
different barriers and put them in the way. Today we are finally saying 
``Enough.'' We are not being 
[[Page H4679]]  protectionist. Our markets are wide open, but so should 
theirs be.
  However, I have one admonition. As we put tariffs on certain Japanese 
products in an effort to force their markets open, our own 
manufacturers ought not to take advantage by raising their own prices. 
We need to have a united front here in America, and no one group, not 
the automobile owners or anyone else, should take advantage of that.
  As long as they do not raise their prices, market share for them will 
increase, the Japanese will feel the heat, and maybe for the first time 
in a long time, free trade will be on both sides of the Pacific Ocean.

                          ____________________
```
#### HITCHCOCK *v.*TOUSEY.

United States Mails ; Second-Class Mail Matteb.

This case is governed by the decision of the court in *Hitchcock*v. *Smith,*ante, 521.

Where a decree granting an injunction was reversed by this court, the injunction, by agreement of the parties, was continued in force by order of this court, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, upon the unsuccessful party giving a bond to be approved by this court.

No. 2060.

Submitted February 9, 1910.

Decided March 1, 1910.

Hearing on an appeal by the defendant, the Postmaster General, from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia enjoining him from revoking an order admitting a publication to transmission through the mails at second-class rates of postage.

*Reversed.*

*Mr. Daniel W. Baker,*United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, *Mr. F. Sprigg Perry,*and *Mr. James J. Britt,*special counsel for the Postoffiee Department, for the appellant.

*Mr. H. U. Olassie*and *Mr. J. J. Darlington*for the appellees.

Mr. Justice Bobb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The publication here involved, “Work and Win,” is not materially different from the “Tip” Top Weekly,” considered in the preceding case [ante, 521], and by stipulation the same testimony that was considered in that case was considered in this. *536For tbe reasons assigned in that case we reverse the decree in this, with costs, and remand the case for further proceedings.

*Reversed.*

A motion by the appellee to modify and amend the decree and order of this court was granted March 11, 1910, Mr. Chief Justice Shepabd delivering the opinion of the Court:

Upon motion of the attorneys for the appellee herein, a decree- and order passed in the above-entitled cause on the first day of March, a. d. 1910, is hereby amended and modified as follows: That portion of the decree and order directing the cause to be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings is hereby stricken out, and in place thereof the said decree shall read: “That the bill of complaint in said cause be, and it is hereby, dismissed, and the injunction issued on June 11th, 1909, be, and the same is hereby, dissolved: Provided, however, that upon the appellee herein furnishing bond in the sum of $10,000, to be approved by the court, the said injunction is to continue in force pending the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

This decree was submitted by agreement of counsel, and is entered as prepared by them.

An appeal to the' Supreme Court of the United States was allowed May 22, 1910, on application of the appellee.