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

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 01-60316

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDREW L. DEXTER, also known as “Toby”,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:99-CR-72-ALL-D)

 December 17, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andrew L. Dexter appeals his jury-trial conviction and

sentence for making false statements while applying for Farmers

Home Administration (FHA) loan servicing in 1993 (to obtain a

write-down against his FHA loans), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1014. He first maintains the district court erred in admitting

into evidence the 1989 write-down of his FHA loans as proof of

intent, under FED. R. EVID. 404(b). 

The evidence of the 1989 write-down was properly admitted

under Rule 404(b). The Government was required to prove Dexter

made his false statements for the purpose of influencing the FHA.
2

That Dexter had obtained a write-down in 1989 evidenced familiarity

with the loan-servicing process and awareness that omission of

liabilities by a borrower has the capacity to influence FHA writedown decisions. Thus, the 1989 write-down was relevant to Dexter’s

intent and lack of mistake in omitting/concealing liabilities in

1993 in seeking another write-down. See United States v. Beechum,

582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S.

920 (1979). The probative value of that evidence was not

substantially outweighed by any prejudice to Dexter, see id.,

especially in the light of the district court’s limiting

instruction. There was no abuse of discretion. See United States

v. Carrillo, 20 F.3d 617, 619 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S.

901 (1994).

Dexter also contends that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000), the amount of loss attributable to him was an

essential element of his offense and therefore should have been

submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi

requires that, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any

fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed

statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a

reasonable doubt”. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. The statutory

maximum for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 is 30 years. See 18

U.S.C. § 1014. Dexter’s 12-month and one-day sentence does not

violate Apprendi, as it is well below the statutory maximum.

AFFIRMED
Payload Specialist Bio: Dr. Samuel T. Durrance 5/96

file:///jsc-ird-uweb/jscextern/Bios/PS/durrance.htm[5/3/2017 8:21:30 PM]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Houston, Texas 77058

Biographical Data

SAMUEL T. DURRANCE (PH.D.)

NASA PAYLOAD SPECIALIST

PERSONAL DATA: Born September 17, 1943, in Tallahassee, Florida, but considers Tampa, Florida his hometown.

Married to the former Rebecca Tuggle. Two children. He enjoys going to the beach with his family, scuba diving,

flying, running, auto racing, photography, and camping. His parents, Rodney and Leone Durrance, are residents of

Lakeland, Florida. Her parents, Tommy and Sue Tuggle, reside in Bossier City, Louisiana.

EDUCATION: Received a bachelor of science degree and a master of science degree in physics (with honors),

California State University, Los Angeles, California, 1972 and 1974, respectively; and a doctor of philosophy degree in

astro-geophysics, University of Colorado, 1980.

PROFESSION: Dr. Durrance is a Principal Research Scientist in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at The

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. He is a co-investigator for the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope, one of

the instruments of the Astro Observatory.

ORGANIZATIONS: American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union, International Astronomical

Union, Association of Space Explorers, Planetary Society, and Phi Kappa Phi.

EXPERIENCE: Dr. Durrance has been involved in the flight hardware development, optical and mechanical design,

construction, and integration of the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope and the Astro Observatory. He has conducted

research and directed graduate students at the Johns Hopkins University for the past 15 years. He has designed and built

spectrometers, detectors, and imaging systems, and made numerous spacecraft and ground-based astronomical

observations. He conceived and directed a program at Johns Hopkins University to develop adaptive-optics

instrumentation for ground based astronomy. He led the team that designed and constructed the Adaptive Optics

Coronagraph, which led to the discovery of a cool brown dwarf -- the first unambiguous detection. His research interests

include the origin and evolution of the solar system, the search for planets around other stars, and the origin of life. He

has published over 60 technical papers about spacecraft operations, planetary astronomy, adaptive optics, aeronomy,

and nuclear physics.

Dr. Durrance has logged over 615 hours in space as a member of the crew of Space Shuttle Columbia for the STS35/Astro-1 and Space Shuttle Endeavour for the STS-67/Astro-2 missions.

CURRENT ASSIGNMENT: Dr. Durrance is located at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Astrophysical

Sciences in Baltimore, Maryland. He is a member of the research team analyzing ultraviolet data returned from the STS67/Astro-2 space shuttle flight. He is also President of Earth Systems Technology, a small company developing new

technology for the study and management of Earth's resources.

MAY 1996
- Home
- Advanced Air Vehicles Program
- Advanced Air Transport…

- Advanced Air Vehicles Program
- Projects   - Advanced Air Transport Technology (AATT)
  - Commercial Supersonic Technology (CST)
  - Hypersonic Technology (HT)
  - Hi-Rate Composite Aircraft Manufacturing (HiCAM)
  - Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC)
  - Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology (RVLT)
- About   - Leadership and Team
  - Contact NASA

# Advanced Air Transport Technology  Project

The Advanced Air Transport Technology (AATT) project is NASA’s vision for advanced fixed-wing transport aircraft that features revolutionary energy efficiency and environmental compatibility. The overarching goal of the AATT project is to explore and develop technologies and concepts to enable this vision.

                                Learn More About AATT about Advanced Air Transport Technology  Project

## Project manager

Dr. Dale Van Zante

## Deputy Project Manager

Melinda Cagle

## CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST for Airframe

Scott Anders

## CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST for Propulsion *(Acting)*

**Ezra McNichols**

## Latest AATT Project News

				More AATT News                			

Article4 Min Read
NASA Armstrong Builds Model Wing to Help Advance Unique Design

Image Article2 Min Read
NASA and Partners Study Contrail Formation

Article4 Min Read
NASA, Partners Explore Sustainable Fuel’s Effects on Aircraft Contrails
Article4 Min Read
NASA Armstrong Tests Model of Efficient Wing

1 Min Read
A Future Aircraft Design, Supercomputed
Image Article3 Min Read
NASA, Boeing Gather Data to Aid Sustainable Aviation Fuel Adoption
Article6 Min Read
NASA Studies Source of Ice Crystals in High Places
Article3 Min Read
NASA, GE Complete Historic Hybrid-Electric Propulsion Tests
Article

## Flying Electric without Taking Off

Sustainable aircraft of the future are going to need propulsion systems that can use technology to generate power comparable to the equipment used in today’s commercial jets.
				Learn More                                     about Flying Electric without Taking Off

## Advanced Air Vehicles Program Gallery

28 Images

Go To Gallery

Go To Gallery

@NASA@NASAaero@NASA_es

@NASA@NASAaero@NASA_es

@NASA@NASAaero@NASA_es

@NASA

## Explore More

4 min readNASA, Industry to Start Designing More Sustainable Jet Engine CoreArticle										4 weeks ago									

2 min readNASA Noise Prediction Tool Supports Users in Air Taxi IndustryArticle										2 months ago									

4 min readNASA Instruments Will Listen for Supersonic X-59’s Quiet ‘Thump’Article										4 months ago									

## Discover More Topics From NASA

Missions

Humans In Space
Solar System Exploration
Why Oceans Matter The story of oceans is the story of life. Life as we know it requires three ingredients:…

Explore NASA’s History
EXHIBIT 10.7

                               AMENDING AGREEMENT

     THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 31st day of January, 2000,

BETWEEN:

     LEVEL JUMP FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,
     a corporation amalgamated under the laws of the State of Florida
     ("Level Jump-Florida"),

     - and -

     thestockpage.com inc.,
     a corporation incorporated under the laws
     of the Province of Ontario (the "Corporation").

     WHEREAS the Articles of Merger and the Plan of Merger between
Level-Jump-Florida and Level Jump Financial Group, Inc., a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Colorado ("Level Jump- Colorado")
resulted in Level Jump-Florida being the surviving corporation;

     AND WHEREAS Level Jump-Colorado and the Corporation are parties to a
Support Agreement (the "Agreement") dated June 1, 1999;

     AND WHEREAS section 2.12 of the Agreement requires any successor to Level
Jump-Colorado to assume the rights and obligations of Level Jump-Florida
pursuant to the Agreement;

     NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT in consideration of the mutual
covenants hereinafter contained, the partes hereto covenant and agree as
follows:

     1.   The Agreement be and it is hereby amended to provide that all
          references to Parent shall refer to Level Jump-Florida;

     2.   The rights and obligations of Level Jump-Colorado under the Agreement
          are now the rights and obligations of Level Jump-Colorado;

     3.   Each party shall do such acts and shall execute such further documents
          in order to give full effect to the provisions of this agreement.

     4.   This agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the
          laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable
          therein;

     5.   The Agreement, as amended by this agreement, is hereby ratified and
          confirmed.




<PAGE>



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be
duly executed as of the date first above written.

                                   LEVEL JUMP FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.


                                   By  ________________________________
                                      Name:
                                      Title:


                                   thestockpage.com inc.


                                   By  ________________________________
                                       Name:
                                       Title:
EXHIBIT 32



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 of Pacific Land and Coffee Corporation

(the "Company") on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending March,  2005,

as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the

"Report"),  I, Al Coscina, Chief Financial 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 and 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



/s/ Al Coscina

By: Al Coscina

Chief Financial Officer

June 29, 2005
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, L. George
Klaus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Epicor Software Corporation.



|    |  |                                        
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ L. George Klaus                    
|    |  | L. George Klaus Chief Executive Officer



I, Michael A. Piraino, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Epicor
Software Corporation.



|    |  |                                                                                                                  
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Michael A. Piraino                                                                                           
|    |  | Michael A. Piraino Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
#### Jesse Benton *v.*M. Jameson.

Parol Exchange of Land.

The only principle upon which appellant was entitled to relief was upon the restoration of the land he obtained from the appellee to him, and an equitable interest and settlement of rents and improvements by each party.

Judgment for Sale of Land from Quarterly Courts.

Land cannot be sold under an execution on a judgment from a quarterly court.

APPEAL PROM ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT.

June 13, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

By the opinion of this court, delivered in this case heretofore, it was settled that the controversy had grown out of a parol exchange of land, and the only principle upon which appellant was entitled to relief as the case was then presented, if at all, was upon the restoration of the land he obtained from appellee to him, and an equitable estimate and settlement of rents and value of improvements made by each party on the respective tracts, etc.

Upon the return of the case to the court below, instead of tendering a restoration to Jameson of the land on Red Lick creek, he sets up a claim against him, as a lien upon the land, for $50 alleged to have been paid to one Billion more than twenty years before tbe claim was asserted. And a loss of the land by virtue of a sale thereof, under an execution, issued by the judge of the Estill quarterly court, on a judgment of said court, wbicb sale was made in July, 1853, at which one Park, son-in-law of appellant, was purchaser, and to whom, it appears, he surrendered the possession, although it does not appear that the sheriff ever executed a deed to Park, or that he was paid the amount bid. And this sale and purchase is set up by appellant as having divested him of any right to the land and as a cause for the restoration to him of the Crooked Creek tract of land, without restoring the other tract to appellee. Park, we apprehend, acquired nothing by his pretended purchase under the sheriff sale.

*180Section 845, Civil Code, provides that “ land shall not be levied on, or sold under execution from a *quarterly,*or justice’s court, or any court of similar jurisdiction,” and the next section provides how such judgment may be satisfied by a sale of the lands of defendants therein, but the mode there prescribed was not pursued in this case.

As, therefore, appellant failed to offer a restoration of the land ■ which he got of appellee on Red Lick creek, and offered no sufficient reason for failing to do so, and as, moreover, he may have by surrendering possession of it to Park put it out of his power *to*restore the land to Jameson, ho did not show himself entitled to the relief sought.

Wherefore, the judgment dismissing his petition is affirmed.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1655

To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish the 

do-not-call registry. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2003

Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. 

MCCAIN, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. 

FEINGOLD, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. 

VOINOVICH, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. KENNEDY, 

Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. 

KERRY, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. ALEXANDER, Ms. 

LANDRIEU, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. CORNYN, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. SMITH, Mr. 

SARBANES, Mr. GRAHAM of Florida, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. NELSON of 

Florida, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. REED, Mr. WARNER, Mr. FRIST, Mr. 

BURNS, Mr. LUGAR, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. COLEMAN, 

Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. AKAKA, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. ENZI, Mr. CHAFEE, Ms. 

SNOWE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BAYH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. 

BROWNBACK, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. REID, Mr. DODD, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. 

CAMPBELL, Mr. WYDEN, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. SPECTER) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL

To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission 

to establish the do-not-call registry.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1655 IS 

1 SECTION 1. NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY. 

2 (a) AUTHORITY.—The Federal Trade Commission is 

3 authorized under section 3(a)(3)(A) of the Telemarketing 

4 and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 

5 U.S.C. 6102(a)(3)(A)) to implement and enforce a na6 tional do-not-call registry. 

7 (b) RATIFICATION.—The do-not-call registry provi8 sion of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. 

9 310.4(b)(1)(iii)), which was promulgated by the Federal 

10 Trade Commission, effective March 31, 2003, is ratified.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      3,571,093
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      4,998,445
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              100,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            1,092,969
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                27,600,317
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     20,376,970
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       20,406,400
<LOANS>                                   114,087,248
<ALLOWANCE>                                   900,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            175,869,866
<DEPOSITS>                                141,483,729
<SHORT-TERM>                                8,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         1,346,400
<LONG-TERM>                                 5,676,835
<COMMON>                                    4,923,261
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 12,661,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            175,869,866
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             7,310,287
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           2,199,113
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              144,568
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            9,653,968
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          4,934,133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          5,352,307
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       4,301,661
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 200,542
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             13,614
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             2,827,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,885,181
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  1,885,181
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                1,142,547
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.03    
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.54
<LOANS-NON>                                         0
<LOANS-PAST>                                  734,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             1,300,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              710,168
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  10,138
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             900,572
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          295,808
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       604,764
        

</TABLE>