alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10068

Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Elechi N. Oti,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-481-4

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Defendant-Appellant Elechi N. Oti, federal prisoner # 18706-021, 

appeals the denial of a motion to reduce her sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2) in light of Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. She contends that 

she was eligible for a reduction in her sentence despite the fact that the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10068 Document: 00515671173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
No. 20-10068

2

amendment was in effect at the time of sentencing, because U.S.S.G. § 

1B1.11, p.s., required the district court to apply an earlier guidelines manual 

that did not incorporate the amendment. We review the district court’s

determination that Oti was not eligible for a sentence reduction de novo. See 

United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010).

Notwithstanding Oti’s creative arguments, the plain operation of 

governing principles shows that she was not eligible for relief under § 3582(c) 

and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. The amendment did not subsequently lower the 

applicable guidelines range, as required by § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10(a)(1), 

because the amendment was already in effect. See United States v. Alvarez, 

210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). In addition, the first step in 

determining whether a defendant is eligible for a reduction requires the court 

to determine what her guidelines range would have been if the amendment 

had been “in effect at the time of the initial sentencing.” Dillon v. United 

States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010); see § 1B1.10(b)(1). If that range is lower than 

the one applied at sentencing, the defendant is eligible for a reduction. See 

§ 1B1.10(a)(1), comment. (n.1(A)); United States v. Morgan, 866 F.3d 674, 

676-77 (5th Cir. 2017). Under the first step, Oti was not eligible because the 

amendment was already “in effect at the time of the initial sentencing.” 

Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827; see § 1B1.10(b)(1). The district court therefore did 

not err by denying the motion.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10068 Document: 00515671173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
DISMISS; Opinion Filed May 16, 2013. 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05

- 13

- 00667

- CR
CHRISTIAN GABRIEL MC CULLOUGH , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12

- 70377

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Myers Christian Gabriel McCullough was convicted, upon his adjudica tion of guilt, of forgery of a check and was sentenced to confinement for one year in a state jail. Sentence was imposed in open court on December 3, 2012. On April 23, 2013, appellant filed a motion for a judgment
nunc pro tunc seeking additional back ti me credit. The trial court does not appear to have ruled on the motion, but on May 3, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal asserting he is being denied back time credit to which he is entitled. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

Presen tence time credit claims typically must be raised by motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, as appellant did here. See Ex parte Florence , 319 W.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (per curiam). However, if the trial court denies a motion for judgment nunc p ro tunc or fails to respond, the proper avenue for relief is by petition for writ of mandamus. See id. Or, if the applicant claims he is being illegally confined because he would have discharged his– 2

– sentence if he had been given proper time credit, he m ay seek relief by post

- conviction writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See id. Appellant did not utilize the above avenues for relief. Rather, he filed a notice of appeal , which is not one of the identified r emedies. Accordingly, w e conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX R. A PP

. P . 47 130667F.U05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

CHRISTIAN GABRIEL MCCULLOUGH, Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 00667

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12

- 70377. Opinion delivered by Justice My ers, Justices Lang and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 16th day of May, 2013.

/Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 23




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS






We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
The Monarch Machine Tool Company and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 2-92311)
of our report dated February 19, 1998, except for Note 2 as to which the date is
March 12, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of The Monarch Machine Tool Company and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the years ended December
31, 1997, 1996, and 1995, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.





COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Dayton, Ohio
March 27, 1998
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Effective date:*                         December 9, 2014.                    

      ( print page 73116)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 2, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 102 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2015-13, CP2015-16.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Requirements.

[FR Doc. 2014-28737 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000068145
<NAME> MORGAN'S FOODS, INC. 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY>US DOLLARS 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-2-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              MAR-4-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-2-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,013,000
<SECURITIES>                                   198,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    293,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,807,000
<PP&E>                                      24,784,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,875,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,312,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,691,000
<BONDS>                                      6,474,000
<COMMON>                                       178,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,122,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,312,000
<SALES>                                     38,252,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,252,000
<CGS>                                       22,092,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               40,842,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               241,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,199,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,030,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,055,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,055,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3800-17T4

HENRY.GROVE DIVERSIFIED

INVESTMENTS, LLP,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 

AFFAIRS, LOCAL FINANCE

BOARD,

Respondents-Respondents.

___________________________

Submitted May 30, 2019 – Decided June 19, 2019

Before Judges Simonelli, Whipple and Firko. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Community Affairs, Local Finance Board.

Goldenberg, Mackler, Sayegh, Mintz, Pfeffer, Bonchi 

& Gill, attorneys for appellant (Keith A. Bonchi, of 

counsel and on the brief; Elliott J. Almanza, on the 

brief). 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3800-17T4

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondents State of New Jersey, Department of 

Community Affairs, Local Finance Board (Melissa H. 

Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Susan 

M. Scott and Jonathan S. Sussman, Deputy Attorneys

General, on the brief).

McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC, attorneys for 

respondent City of Bridgeton (William W. Northgrave 

and Ted Del Guercio, III, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This matter has been amicably adjusted and the parties have stipulated to 

the dismissal of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice 

and without costs.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4807

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004

Received 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 140 Sacramento Street in Rio Vista, California, as the ‘‘Adam G. Kinser Post Office Building’’.

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

HR 4807 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 140 Sacramento Street in Rio Vista, California, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Adam G. Kinser 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Adam G. Kinser Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL OF CERTIFICAOO DE APROBACION 

DUALITY MANAGEMENT DEL SISTEMA DE GESTION DE 

SYSTEM LA CALIDA □ 

NATIONAL I NSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

T ECHNOLOGY 

L ow-FREQUENCY E LECTROMAGNETICS 

The Quality Management System supporting the above El Sistema de Gesti6n de la Calidad en que se apoyan las capacidades 

capabilities has been reviewed under the authority of the Inter­ arriba mencionadas ha sido evaluado bajo los terminos del mandato 

American Metrology System and found to be in compliance del Sistema Interamericano de Metrologfa y se ha determinado que 

with the requirement of the CIPM Mutual Recognition cumple con los requisitos del Acuerdo de Reconocimiento Mutuo del 

Arrangement to operate a Quality Management System based 

CIPM de implementar un Sistema de Gesti6n de la Calidad basado en on ISO/IEC 17025 and / or ISO Guide 34. 

la norma ISO/IEC 17025 y!o ISO Guia 34. 

~~ Claire Saunclry, President, SIM 

Expiry 

Approval 

date: 

date

2 

: 

April 

1 April 

2024 

2019 

G-e6rgette 

~ 

Macdonald, Chair, SIM Quality System Task Force
#### Commonwealth v. Henry Benge.

Criminal Law — Incriminating Testimony.

Where accused gave incriminating testimony before an examining court, the commonwealth may afterwards prove the statements made by him before the examining court, to sustain the charge of the indictment.

APPEAL PROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 3, 1873.

*McCreary, for appellee.*

*Attorney-General, for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

The appellee, Benge, was. certainly not bound to incriminate himself when testifying before the county judge; but wholly failing to avail himself of that immunity at the time, we think it was competent for the commonwealth afterwards, in this case, to prove any statements he may have made before the judge conducting the examination to sustain the charge in the indictment; and the court erred in rejecting such evidence.

But we regard the trial and judgment as such as to exempt the defendant from further jeopardy for the same offense, and the judgment cannot therefore be reversed. Civil Code, Sec. 333.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73103-73104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28728]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration


Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans: 
Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with section 512(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act and its implementing regulations issued by the 
General Services Administration (GSA), the

[[Page 73104]]

charter for the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension 
Benefit Plans is renewed.
    The Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans 
shall advise the Secretary of Labor on technical aspects of the 
provisions of ERISA and shall provide reports and/or recommendations 
each year on its findings to the Secretary of Labor. The Council shall 
be composed of fifteen members appointed by the Secretary. Not more 
than eight members of the Council shall be of the same political party. 
Three of the members shall be representatives of employee organizations 
(at least one of whom shall be a representative of any organization 
members of which are participants in a multiemployer plan); three of 
the members shall be representatives of employers (at least one of whom 
shall be a representative of employers maintaining or contributing to 
multiemployer plans); three members shall be representatives appointed 
from the general public (one of whom shall be a person representing 
those receiving benefits from a pension plan); and there shall be one 
representative each from the fields of insurance, corporate trust, 
actuarial counseling, investment counseling, investment management, and 
accounting.
    The Advisory Council will report to the Secretary of Labor. It will 
function solely as an advisory body and in compliance with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and its charter will 
be filed under the Act. For further information, contact Larry I. Good, 
Executive Secretary, Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension 
Benefit Plans, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-8668.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of December, 2014.
Phyllis C. Borzi,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-28728 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2013

d1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2013

147597

STATE PACKARD, LLC, and ARCH

REALTY CO.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 147597

COA: 308546

Washtenaw CC: 10-000665-CK

ARTISAN BISTRO, LLC,

Defendant,

and

ALVIN F. RICE, JR., Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2013 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
##### 



Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers and Professionals
 Article 1.
  (1)
    
    Act with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest between
personal interests and the interests of the Company;(2)
    
    Provide constituents with information that is accurate, complete, objective, relevant, timely
and understandable;(3)
    
    Comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations, as well as the rules and
regulations of self-regulatory organizations (such as the Tokyo Stock Exchange and NASDAQ) of
which the Company and/or its subsidiaries are members;(4)
    
    Act in good faith, reasonably, with due care, competence and diligence, without
misrepresenting material facts or allowing their independent judgment to be subordinated;(5)
    
    Respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of their work except when
authorized or otherwise required by applicable laws, rules, regulations or legal or regulatory
proceedings and not use any confidential information acquired in the course of their works;(6)
    
    Share knowledge and maintain skills which are required for and relevant to their work;(7)
    
    Proactively promote ethical behavior among subordinates and peers in the work environment;(8)
    
    Achieve responsible use of and control over all assets and resources employed or entrusted to
them;
 1




---



##### 



(9)
    
    Produce full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports and documents
that the Companys and/or its subsidiaries file with, or submit to, the Financial Services
Agency of Japan, the Securities and Exchange Commission of the U.S.A. and other regulators,
and in other public communications made by the Company and/or its subsidiaries;(10)
    
    Not take any direct or indirect action to fraudulently influence, coerce, manipulate or
mislead the Companys and/or its subsidiaries independent public auditors engaged in the
performance of an audit of their financial statements for the purpose of rendering the
financial statements of the Company or its subsidiaries materially misleading;(11)
    
    Observe the most stringent standards in the keeping of financial records and accounts and
reflect all components of transactions, as well as the standard of insisting upon an honest
and forthright presentation of the facts on the books; and(12)
    
    Promptly report any possible violation of this Code of Ethics to the CCO (Chief Compliance
Officer) or any of the parties or channels listed in the Companys Code of Conduct.
 Article 2.
  Article 3.
  2
EXHIBIT 23.1




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
MOCON, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-42255, 33-49752, 33-58789, and 333-90116) on Form S-8 of MOCON, Inc. of our
reports dated February 19, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
MOCON, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows and
related financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, which reports appear in the December 31, 2002
annual report on Form 10-K of MOCON, Inc.

Our report refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 142, GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS, on January 1, 2002.


                                       /s/ KPMG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 28, 2003