alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 13a0706n.06 No. 12-6319 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. MARK AL L EN WYNN, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

BEF ORE: GI BB ONS, SUTTON, and KETHL EDGE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURI AM. Mark Allen Wy nn appea ls his sentenc e. Wy nn pled g uilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ). The district court deter mined that, by virtue of his offe nse and his prior convictions, Wy nn was an arme d car eer criminal under USSG § 4B1.4( a). I t found that Wy nn’s t otal offe nse l evel was 31 and that his criminal hi story cate g ory

was VI , resulting in a g uidelines rang e of 188 to 235 months. The district court sentenc ed Wy nn to 200 months in prison. On appea l, Wy

nn argues that the residual clause of the Armed Caree r Criminal Act (ACCA), which the district court relied on when deter mining that he was an arme d car eer criminal, is unconstitutionally vague. Wy nn also arg ues that the district court plainly err ed by concluding that he was subject to the provisions of the ACCA be cause his pr edica te convictions wer e not se t f orth in the indictment and prove n to a jury bey ond a re asonable doubt.No. 12-6319

United States v. W

ynn We revie w de novo the leg al question of whether a cr i m i n al statute is unconstitutionally
vag ue. United States v. Hart , 635 F.3d 850, 856 (6th Cir. 201 1 ). A defe ndant is subject to an enhanc ed sentenc e under the ACCA when he is convicted under § 922(g ) and he has three previous convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offe nses. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1); United States v. Taylor , 696 F.3d 628, 630 (6th Cir. 2012). The residu al clause define s in part the term “violent felony ” as a crime involving “conduc t that prese nts a serious potent i al ri s k of phy sical injury to another .” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2)( B) (ii); Taylor , 696 F.3d a t 631. As Wy nn conce des, his challeng e to the constitutionalit y of the residual clause must fail. We have previously reje cted the argument that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vag ue, and this panel cannot recons i d er that decision. See Taylor , 696 F.3d at 633. I n addition, the di strict court d i d not err , plainly or otherwise, by concluding that Wy nn was subject to the provisions of the ACCA. I n Almendarez- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the fac t of a prior conviction does not need to be set fo rt h i n t he indictment and proven bey ond a

rea sonable doubt. See United States v. Anderson , 6 95 F.3d 390, 398 (6th Cir. 2012). Despite Wy nn’s arg ument to the contra ry , the Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), did not undermine the rule set forth in Almendarez- Torres

. See Alleyne , 133 S. Ct. at 2160 n.1. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm Wy nn’s sentenc e.

-2-
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


<PAGE>





                            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  periodic  report  on Form  10-K for the  period  ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") of Industrial Minerals, Inc. (the "Company") I,
John Melnyk,  Chief Financial  Officer,  Secretary and Treasurer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant  to 18USC  ss.1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: March 16, 2005

/s/John Melnyk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Melnyk, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6060

STEPHEN M. HAUSE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE MARTIN, III, Warden; G. P. MIRO,

Associate Warden; HARRIETTE FOWLER, Nelson

Complaint Coordinator; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of

Corrections; RICKIE BELLINGER, Classification

Case Worker, C.C.I.; and possibly JOHN DOE

DEFENDANTS, in their individual and/or

official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-93-1790-2-20AJ)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen M. Hause, Appellant Pro Se. David Leon Morrison, ELLIS,

LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order

based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning and an extension of time, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's

recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
HMN FINANCIAL, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date: December 19, 2008
    
    /s/ Michael McNeil
Michael McNeilPresident/Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Jon Eberle
Jon EberleSenior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
 3
#### Charles Markle v. James C. Scott.

(No. 3406.)

Error from Tarrant County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 674. *Contract; made on Sunday; when valid and when not valid.*A contract made on Sunday in relation *594to the commencement of an attachment suit is.not invalid because made on that day. The Sunday laws of this state prohibit certain labor on that day, and prohibit gaming, horse-racing, and the’ sale of goods, etc., on that day. [P. C. arts. 183, 185, 186.] They also require that public schools shall be closed on that day. [R. S. art. 3712.] And it is also provided that no suit shall be brought on that day, *except an attachment suit.*[R. S. art. 191.] These are the only statutory restrictions relating to Sunday. A contract made in violation of any of these statutes would be illegal and incapable of enforcement. But we know of no law which makes a contract illegal and void, or even voidable, merely because made on Sunday, when such contract is in regard to a,matter not. made unlawful by statute. At common law, as to contracts, no distinction is made between Sunday and any other day. [7 Wait’s Act. & Def. 114; 2 Parsons on Con. (7th ed.) bottom p. 892, note 2.]

May 9, 1885.

§ 675. *Illegality in contract must he specially pleaded.*No illegality in a contract which has not been pleaded can be considered. It is well settled that illegality in a contract, to be noticed, must be specially pleaded; and where, as in this case, the j>etition shows a valid contract, the court, in the absence of a special plea, cannot inquire into the legality of such contract. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 1331; 7 Wait’s Act. & Def. 70.]

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1604 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1604

  To designate the headquarters building of the Embassy of the United 
 States in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as the ``Mickey Leland United States 
                          Embassy Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2007

Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself, Mr. Payne, Mr. Wexler, 
 Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. Jackson-
Lee of Texas, Mr. Poe, Ms. Watson, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Hinojosa, 
   Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Lampson, Mr. 
 Rodriguez, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Doggett, 
 Mr. Reyes, and Mr. Cuellar) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the headquarters building of the Embassy of the United 
 States in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as the ``Mickey Leland United States 
                          Embassy Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The headquarters building of the Embassy of the United States in 
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, shall be known and designated as the ``Mickey 
Leland United States Embassy Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the headquarters building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mickey Leland 
United States Embassy Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE in the Interest of D.R.

No. 2010-CK-2711.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

*997In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 2009-120-01-DQ-E; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0404.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7210 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7210

   To direct the Director of the United States Geological Survey to 
 establish a program to map zones that are at greater risk of sinkhole 
                   formation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 30, 2018

  Mr. Soto (for himself, Mr. Curbelo of Florida, Mr. Crist, and Mrs. 
Murphy of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Director of the United States Geological Survey to 
 establish a program to map zones that are at greater risk of sinkhole 
                   formation, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sinkhole Mapping Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. SINKHOLE HAZARD IDENTIFICATION.

    (a) In General.--The Director of the United States Geological 
Survey shall establish a program to--
            (1) study the short-term and long-term mechanisms that 
        cause sinkholes, including extreme storm events, prolonged 
        droughts causing shifts in water management practices, aquifer 
        depletion, and other major changes in water use; and
            (2) develop maps that depict zones that are at greater risk 
        of sinkhole formation.
    (b) Review of Maps.--Once during each 5-year period, or more often 
as the Director of the United States Geological Survey determines is 
necessary, the Director shall assess the need to revise and update the 
maps developed under this section.
    (c) Website.--The Director of the United States Geological Survey 
shall establish and maintain a public website that displays the maps 
developed under this section and other relevant information critical 
for use by community planners and emergency managers.
                                 <all>
```
#### Warth, Appellee, *v.*Hyman, Appellant.

(No. 6056

Decided December 8, 1941.)

*462
      *Mr. A. Friedman*and *Mr. Wm. G. 8chuck,*for appellee.

*Mr. Paul W. Steer,*for appellant.

Ross, J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county, Ohio. The plaintiff wrongfully refused to give up a bed which was the property of the defendant, who instituted a criminal prosecution charging plaintiff with criminal conversion. He was arrested and, upon trial, acquitted, after which he instituted the present action asking damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant cross-petitioned for the value of the bed. Upon trial, the jury gave the plaintiff $1,250 on his petition and found against the defendant on her cross-petition. The court remitted $500 from the amount of the verdict as being excessive and also deducted $12 more, being the amount asked by the defendant in her cross-petition as the value of the bed.

The reason assigned by the court for the latter remittitur was that the court had erred in its charge, in requiring the defendant to prove statutory criminal conversion, rather than ordinary common-law conversion of the bed. The effect of such action was to render judgment for the defendant on her cross-petition, giving her the full amount claimed by her. This action removed all claims of error advanced by the defendant. She received all she had claimed. She could receive no more, no matter what error had intervened.

The defendant further objects to the charge of the court permitting the recovery of punitive damages. Such damages always may be incidental or ancillary to a suit for malicious prosecution. The very gist of the action is malice, either legal or actual. 25 Ohio Jurisprudence, 957, Section 82.

*463■Now it appears clearly from the record that the defendant knew that the plaintiff was not actually guilty of harboring any criminal intent in retaining the bed. The defendant had every reason to believe that the plaintiff retained the bed because he believed he was entitled to retain it. The bed originally had been substituted by the defendant for an “in-a-door” bed, which was unsatisfactory to the plaintiff. The relationship between the parties at that time was that of landlord and tenant, the plaintiff being the tenant.

Subsequently, the defendant sold the premises and wanted the ordinary bed, which, of course, was not transferred with the building. The dispute between the parties was purely one involving a civil matter. The defendant resorted to the criminal courts to secure relief purely civil in character. Certainly, no one can say in the face of such action that actual malice was not present. The evidence shows that defendant was told by the clerk of the municipal court that the proceeding adopted was the only method of securing her bed. This does not negative the fact that she prosecuted the plaintiff for the purpose of securing purely civil relief, when she knew the plaintiff had committed no violation of any criminal statute.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed,.*

Matthews, P. J., and Hamilton, J., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Keith Wilson Goodson

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00288

- CR

Trial court case number: 1457737

Trial court: 184th District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.

Date: May 28, 2015
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7188 

To extend by two years the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards 

Program of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2018 

Mr. RATCLIFFE (for himself, Mr. RICHMOND, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. THOMPSON

of Mississippi, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. SHIMKUS, and Mr. 

TONKO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To extend by two years the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

Standards Program of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Chemical Facility Anti5 Terrorism Standards Program Extension Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 7188 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TER2 RORISM STANDARDS PROGRAM OF THE DE3 PARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. 

4 Section 5 of the Protecting and Securing Chemical 

5 Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 (Public Law 

6 113–254; 6 U.S.C. 621 note) is amended by striking ‘‘4 

7 years’’ and inserting ‘‘6 years’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,619                   1,794
<SECURITIES>                                     4,134                   3,272
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,009                  11,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                       313                     876
<INVENTORY>                                      3,480                   5,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,144                  23,556
<PP&E>                                          24,363                  16,168
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,603                   5,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,031                  40,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,875                  12,265
<BONDS>                                          6,194                   1,274
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            81                      79
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,754                  27,316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,031                  40,934
<SALES>                                         19,216                  20,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,224                  45,618
<CGS>                                           12,745                  14,483
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,059                  31,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,630                  11,785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (21)                     861
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,486                   1,919
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,261)                   (656)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,225                   1,263
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,225                   1,263
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28                     .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27                     .15
        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                     President's Committee on the National Medal of Science (1182).                

*Date and Time:*                     Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 8:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.                

*Place:*                     Conference Room, Hilton Arlington Hotel, 950 North Stafford Street, Arlington, VA 22203.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Closed.                

*Contact Person:*                     Ms. Mayra Montrose, Program Manager, Room 1282, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703-292-4757.                

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     To provide advice and recommendations to the President in the selection of the 2010 National Medal of Science recipients.                

*Agenda:*                     To review and evaluate nominations as part of the selection process for awards.                

*Reason for Closing:*                     The nominations being reviewed include information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                

Dated: September 29, 2010.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-24848 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P