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

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for

the Western District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3667

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the 

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Christopher Randal Manning, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 * 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 9, 2008

Filed: July 11, 2008

___________

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Randal Manning, having previously been sentenced for violating

supervised release, stipulated to a second violation of supervised release. The district

court1

 revoked his supervised release and imposed the maximum sentence of 24

months imprisonment, under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Manning appeals, asserting

procedural unreasonableness. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court

affirms. 

This court reviews for abuse of discretion a sentence within the bounds of

section 3583(e)(3). United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008).
-2-

This court reviews procedural sentencing errors for plain error when, as here, the

defendant fails to object in the district court. See United States v. Burnette, 518 F.3d

942, 946 (8th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 4, 2008) (No. 07-11317).

Manning argues the district court did not adequately consider and articulate the

relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Chapter 7 of the United States

Sentencing Guidelines. 

A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the court fails to consider the §

3553(a) factors or fails to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall v. United

States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The district court does not have to make specific

findings, and all that is normally required is evidence that the court was aware of the

relevant § 3553(a) factors. Perkins, 526 F.3d at 1110. The court is not required to

categorically rehearse each § 3553(a) factor as long as they were clearly considered.

United States v. Austad, 519 F.3d 431, 436 (8th Cir. 2008). 

Here, the record reveals the court’s awareness of the relevant § 3553(a) factors.

The court was familiar with Manning’s history, characteristics, and conduct because

it imposed Manning’s initial sentence for bank fraud and revoked his supervised

release for the first violation. See Perkins, 526 F.3d at 1111. Further, Manning’s

counsel informed the court that the “Chapter 7 range is twelve to eighteen months”

while the government recommended the maximum of 24 months. See United States

v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding sufficient consideration of the

Chapter 7 policy statements where “the district court was made aware of both the

suggested range under Chapter 7 of the Guidelines and the statutory maximum

sentence” through counsel’s arguments). The court concluded “given the conduct of

this defendant, that an extreme sentence would be appropriate.” The court adequately

explained the chosen sentence. 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          18,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  240,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,100
<INVENTORY>                                    454,544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               860,198
<PP&E>                                       6,972,380
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,960,352
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,404,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,000,149
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,091,752
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,265,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,404,776
<SALES>                                        931,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,606,750 
<CGS>                                          845,171
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,307,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (700,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (700,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (700,543)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

((((((((((((((((

No. 10-0272

((((((((((((((((

In Re Albert G. Hill, III And Erin Hill, Relators

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

**ORDER**

1.The motion to abate original proceeding pending finalization of global settlement, filed on October 21, 2010, is granted, and this case is **ABATED**.

2.This case is removed from the Court's active docket until further order of this Court.  The parties shall immediately notify this Court of any changes in status in the settlement proceedings.  The parties shall file either a status report or a motion to dismiss by January 27, 2011.

Done at the City of Austin, this 29th day of October, 2010.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
June 19, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DOYLE MURPHREE, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00416-CV V.

LUCY M. COOPER, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal in favor of appellee, Lucy M. Cooper, signed, April 6, 2011, 

was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error 

in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Doyle Murphree, jointly and severly, to pay all costs incurred 

in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Erin M. Rohde, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

 
| Dated March 17, 2014 |                                  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |                                  |
|                      | /s/ Erin M. Rohde                |
|                      | Erin M. Rohde                         |
|                      | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|                      | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|                      | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner |
|                      | Trust 2011-B                          |

 

----
#### SEYMOUR BEST AND CECELIA BEST, HIS WIFE v. LEON M. SACHAT.

March 12, 1985.

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Superior Court, Law Division, Union County for reconsideration, after entertaining full argument, written and oral, from all parties, of the motion to compel arbitration. See *Kalman Floor Company, Inc. v.*
      *230
      *Jos. L. Muscarelle, Inc.,*196 *N.J.Super.*16, 26-7 (App.Div.1984), aff*'d o.b.,*98 *N.J.*266 (1985).

Jurisdiction is not retained.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about 
the Federal debt, let's do our little pop quiz once more:
  Question: How many million dollars are in $1 trillion? While you are 
arriving at an answer, bear in mind that it was the U.S. Congress that 
ran up the Federal debt that now exceeds $4.8 trillion.
  To be exact, as of the close of business Tuesday, May 2, the exact 
Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,859,125,275,200.95. This 
means that every man, woman and child in America now owes $18,445.32 
computed on a per-capita basis.
  Mr. President, back to the pop quiz: How many million in a trillion? 
There are a million million in a trillion.

                          ____________________
```
[No. 43165-0-I.

Division One.

March 27, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Edgar Dennis III, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 97-1-08582-5, Norma Smith Huggins, J., entered July 23, 1998. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished per curiam opinion. Now published at 101 Wn. App. 223.
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Michelle H.Y. Voon  | Attn:  John Ask / Kristine Gullo |
| 100 Plaza One 6 th Floor        | 100 White Clay Center, Suite 102 |
| Jersey City, NY 07311                | Newark, DE  19711 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets, LLC |
| Attn:  John Ask                       | Ally Financial Inc. |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020              | 200 Renaissance Center |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 12 th Floor, MC 482-B12-C24 |
|                                            | Detroit, MI |

|     |
|-----|
|     |  |
| Re: | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2011-3 (the “Issuer”) |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of June 15, 2011 through December 31, 2011, and of its performance under the  Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |
[No. 18268-1-III.

Division Three.

May 2, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Heather Marie Russell, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 98-1-00248-7, Evan E. Sperline, J., entered January 25, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kurtz, C.J., concurred in by Schultheis and Brown, JJ.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 0 858

- C R

Style: Thurston Rickey

- Lee Davis v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : January 11 , 201 8

Type of motion: Second M otion t o Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief

Part y filing motion: Appell ant ’ s new counsel Garrick A. Farria, Esq.

Document to be filed: Notice of Designation of New Lead Counsel/Motion for Substitution of

Counsel

Is appeal accelerated? No

.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: Novem ber 29 , 201 8

Number of extensions granted: 1 Current Due D ate: January 16, 2019

Date Requested: March 16, 2019 (107 days from original deadline)

Ordered that motion i s:

 Granted , in part

If document is to be filed, document due: February 15, 2019

. ☒ No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary

circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Appellant’s new counsel’s first extension request is granted, in part, for 30 days,

but no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances

given the total length of the requests. Although counsel filed a notice of appearance,

Garrick A. Farria is ordered to file a notice of designation of new lead counsel signed

by appointed counsel Natalie Schultz or, if Schultz requests withdrawal, a motion for

substitution of counsel within 10 days of this Order

. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 6. 1(c), 6.5(d)

.

Judge ’ s signature:

___

/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

_________

x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___ January 17, 2019

______
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                TRIBUTE TO THE BERNIE V. GUTHRIE SQUADRON

                                 ______

                            HON. TIM JOHNSON

                            of south dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 10, 1995
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 
Bernie V. Guthrie Squadron, a charter member of the Arnold Air Society, 
located on the campus of South Dakota State University in Brookings, 
SD. The Guthrie Squadron was established in 1951, and named in honor of 
Capt. Bernie V. Guthrie, an Air Force pilot who was shot down over 
Hamm, Germany during World War II.
  Since its establishment, the Bernie V. Guthrie Squadron has had an 
outstanding record of accomplishment and community service. The 
squadron instituted an annual veterans vigil, which began as a local 
project in the late 1980's and was expanded into a permanent nationwide 
project in 1991. In addition, the Guthrie Squadron sold POW/MIA 
bracelets at South Dakota State University to increase student 
awareness of POW/MIA issues, and instituted a POW/MIA name tracing 
project which included all area squadrons.
  The Guthrie Squadron has also served the community and the State by 
organizing blood drives, participating in the Big Brother/Big Sister 
Program, and working with handicapped children and adults. It has 
received numerous honors, including the Outstanding Squadron of 1992, 
the Outstanding State Service Award, and the Jaycees Community Service 
Award.
  I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the achievements 
of the Bernie V. Guthrie Squadron, and to encourage the squadron to 
continue its long and proud tradition of service in South Dakota.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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





In connection with the Amendment No.1 to Annual Report of AmpliTech Group, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fawad Maqbool, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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; and





(2)    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date: May 24, 2013
By:
/s/ Fawad MaqboolFawad Maqbool

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Sierra Income Corporation, (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Seth Taube and
Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to our knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |    |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 13, 2014 |  |  |  | BY |  | /s/ Seth Taube         
|                      |  |  |  |    |  | Seth Taube             
|                      |  |  |  |    |  | Chief Executive Officer



| |  |  |  |    |  |                            
| |  |  |  | -- |  | ---------------------------
| |  |  |  | By |  | /s/ Richard T. Allorto, Jr.
| |  |  |  |    |  | Richard T. Allorto, Jr.    
| |  |  |  |    |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Jonathan Lawrence *versus*John Titus, Jr., Daniel Y. Townsend, & Richard Ellis.

Feb. Term, 1829.

In actions of trespass against an officer and persons acting in his aid ; where the defendants appear by the same attorney, but sever in their defence, and are suc- ■ cessful; the officer is entitled to *double costs,*and each of the lay-defendants, to single costs for all items not allowed to the officer.

This was an action of trespass, *de bonis asportatis,*brought against the defendants, (one of whom was an officer) for seizing property under an execution against one Charles Lawrence, which the plaintiff claimied as his own.

The defenants severed in their defences, and gave distinct pleas. The officer pleaded not guilty. Each of the other defendants, pleaded not guilty, and gave special notices, that they were plaintiffs in the executions under which the officer acted, &c. Verdict for the defendants.

Their case was submitted to the court for directions to the taxing officer.

*Mr. J. Jlnthon*for defendants, insisted,

I. That *each*defendant was entitled to double costs: the officer, as expressly protected by the statute and the other two defendants, as acting in his *aid.*

II. If the lay-defendants are not entitled to double costs, then *they*claim full bills of single costs, and the *officer*claims double costs.

For the defendants were cited the *statute*[1 *R. L.*155.] and the case of *Row v. Sherwood,*[6 *John. R.*109.]

*Mr. Wm. S. Sears*for the plaintiff *contra*contended.

I. That the attorney for the defendants in this cause was entitled to but *one*retaining fee : the same attorney having appeared for all the defendants.

*422II. That the attorney for the defendants is entitled only to single costs, except for the separate plea of the defendant, Ellis ; ^ whole proceedings in the cause having been conducted jointly by the defendants, in the name of the same attorney. He cited, *Wales v. Hart & Dowd. [2 Cowen,*426.]

The court

directed,

I. That the *officer*should be allowed a full bill of costs, *doubled.*

II. That the other defendants should be allowed single costs, for all items, not *allowed to the officer.*

[Mr. E. *Anthon, Att’y for the plffs.*Mr. W. S. Sears, *Att’y for the defts.]*
#### THE DIOCESE OF NEWARK v. WILLIAM F. BURNS.

Nov. 27, 1979.

Petition for certification to Superior Court, Law Division is granted.
AYI-2014.08.31-EX10(iii)A(46)






AMENDMENT No. 4
TO
ACUITY BRANDS, INC
AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into as of the 27th day of October, 2014, by and between ACUITY BRANDS, INC. (the “Company”) and RICHARD K. REECE (“Executive”);


W I T N E S S E T H


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into a Severance Agreement, dated as of April 21, 2006 (“Severance Agreement”), and amended as of October 28, 2009, March 30, 2010 and March 28, 2014, providing for the payment of certain compensation and benefits to Executive if Executive’s employment is terminated under certain circumstances; and


WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Severance Agreement in the manner hereinafter provided;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Severance Agreement is hereby amended, as follows:


1.
Section 4.2 is hereby amended by deleting “80%” from clause (i) and substituting “90%” in lieu thereof.
2.
This Amendment to the Severance Agreement shall be effective as of the date of this Amendment.  Except as hereby modified, the Severance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


COMPANY


EXECUTIVE                     ACUITY BRANDS, INC.






______________________________        By:  ______________________________
RICHARD K. REECE                        Vernon J. Nagel
        Chairman, President and CEO
#### ROPARK CONCRETE CO., INC. v. SCHIAVONE CONSTRUCTION CO.

Dec. 10, 1979.

Petitions for certification denied.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2011-3 for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby
certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 15, 2011, among Santander Drive Auto
Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2011-3 and U.S. Bank National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period
that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/S/ JASON KULASName:

Jason KulasTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 30, 2012