alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT	FOR	THE

SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

UNITED	STATES	OF	AMERICA,

v.	

JOSEPH	LANDRUM,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CRIMINAL	NO.

07-00392-CB

ORDER

This	matter	is	before	the	Court	on	Defendant’s	pro	se	“motion	to	receive	relief	

under	3582(c)(2).”	(Doc.	44.)		Defendant	states	that	he	is	“filing	pro	se	motion	to	

receive	a	sentence	reduction	based	on	a	new	924(c)	amendment	that	no	longer	

carries	a	mandatory	minimum.”		According	to	18	U.S.C.		§	3582(c),	“[a]	court	may	

not	modify	a	term	of	imprisonment	once	it	has	been	imposed”	except	in	limited	

circumstances.			One	of	those	exceptions	is	found	in	subsection	(c)(2),	which	permits	

a	court	to	reduce	a	term	of	imprisonment	based	on	a	sentencing	range	that	has	

subsequently	been	lowered	by	the	Sentencing	Commission	.	.	.		if	such	a	reduction	is	

consistent	with	the	applicable	policy	statements	issued	by	the	Sentencing	

Commission.”		Defendant	does	not	rely	on	any	amendment	to	the	Sentencing	

Guidelines	but	appears	to	believe	that	a	new	law	has	been	enacted	that	would	lower	

his	sentence.		The	Court	is	not	aware	of	any	guideline	amendment	or	law	that	would	

authorize	a	reduction	of	sentence.		Therefore,	the	motion	is	DENIED.

DONE and	ORDERED this	the	19th day	of	January,	2016.

s/Charles	R.	Butler,	Jr.

Senior	United	States	District	Judge

Case 1:07-cr-00392-TFM-M Document 45 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

<pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARRIN TERRONE AUZENNE, ) 

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

v. ) 08-571-CB-N 

MICHAEL MCCRORY, ) 

Respondent. ) 

JUDGMENT 

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that judgment be entered in favor of 

the Respondent in the above-styled action. No costs are taxed. 

 

DONE this 19th day of July, 2010. 

 s/Charles R. Butler, Jr. 

 Senior United States District Judge 

Case 1:08-cv-00571-CB-N Document 26 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 1
11268.

#### GRIGGS *v.*THE STATE.

A conviction of the offense of making intoxicating liquor was not authorized by the evidence in this case, from which it appeared that the’ accused was discovered at a still where evidently some one had recently been making liquor, and that he had in his hand a cup from which he was drinking, and that when he heard and saw the witnesses he *243threw down the cup and started to run, and he did not stop, \yhen told to do so.

Decided April 14, 1920.

Indictment for manufacture of liquor; from Jones superior court — Judge Park. December 20, 1919.

*J. B. Jackson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The evidence in this case shows that certain persons.approached what was designated as “the still site,” where evidently some one had recently been making liquor. A witness swore: “ We stopped, I suppose, about thirty steps from the still. I saw a negro there. He was as close to the still as the edge of that table, walking from me. He had a quart or a half-gallon cup in his hand, and he was drinking something out of the cup. He was walking away from the still and drinking something as he was walking. I suppose he got as far as the back of the courthouse before he recognized me, and I spoke to Mr. Glawson, and says: ‘Look there, yonder goes a negro from that still/ and the-negro heard me, and threw the cup down and started to run, and I told him to stop, 'and he didn’t, and I shot at him two or three times.” Another witness swore: “When I got on the branch I [could ?] see that distillery, and saw' a man down there. I could not see his head, but I could see his hands and back moving. In a very short time he stepped back and turned his back to me, and reached down on the ground and got a bucket of some description, and went oil drinkng out of it. He was right at the furnace. I didn’t know it at that time. I saw him as he went away. About the time he peartened up, Mr. Ezell and me hailed him and told him to stop, and about that time I shot. . . This man didn’t seem to be excited. He had not seen me. . . I don’t know what started him running. He started, I suppose, when Ezell told him to stop.” ' This is all the evidence that in any way connects the defendant with the offense of making liquor, and is not sufficient to authorize his conviction. The most that can be said of it is that it shows “presence” and “flight.” In *Griffin*v. *State,*2 *Ga. App.*534 (2), it was .held: “Neither presence nor flight, nor both together, without more, is conclusive of guilt.”

*244•It is not necessary to consider the assignments of error not dealt with above.

*tJudgment reversed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 18

- 3708

___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Nicole Marie Gorsline Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________ Submitted: October 14, 2019 Filed: November 19, 2019 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHER D, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PE R CURIAM

.
W hile on supervised release for her role in a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine , Nicole Gorsline was arrested for forgery

. After her probation- 2

- officer testified about the arrest , t he district court 1 revoked supervised release. We affirm.
On appeal, Gorsline argues that the district court should not have relied on her probation officer’s testimony. Her theory is that , once he re ad from the police report
o f h er forgery arrest , it gave rise to a “limited due process right[] ” to confront the report’s author

. United States v. Johnson , 710 F.3d 784, 78 6 (8th Cir. 2013) ; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C)

. The problem with Gorsline’s theory is that she did not invoke this right at the revocation hearing

. See United States v. Simms , 757 F.3d 728, 733 (8th Cir. 2014) (holding that there is no requirement for a district court to remedy a potential confrontation violation sua sponte at a revocation hearing) . To be sure, Gorsline’s attorney stated that the probation officer’s testimony was “hearsay” and lacked “foundation.” But there was no request to question the officer who wrote the report

. S ee Johnson , 710 F.3d at 788 (holding that a releasee properly raised confrontation by “object [ing] to a separate constitutional violation of [his] right to cross

- examine an adverse witness” ). Having never made the request , Gorsline canno t now complain that she was denied the right to confront the report’s author

. See Simms , 757 F.3d at 733

.
We a ccordingly a ffirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
Software Needs:

• SANS:

o Reduction: Igor Pro

▪ Download and install Igor Pro v8

• https://www.wavemetrics.com/downloads

• You do not need a license, use the 30-day trial

• The reduction macros are not compatible with version 9 of Igor

▪ Download and install the SANS reduction macros available at 

https://github.com/sansigormacros/ncnrsansigormacros/releases/latest

• Follow the instructions outlined in 

https://github.com/sansigormacros/ncnrsansigormacros/blob/master/I

nstall_Instructions.txt

▪ Troubleshooting:

• Certain versions of MacOS are blocking the installation of the reduction 

macros. If you see a security warning during installation, please try the 

workaround published by WaveMetrics: 

https://www.wavemetrics.com/forum/general/workaround-catalinaxop-problem

o Analysis: SasView

▪ Download and install the latest release available at 

https://github.com/SasView/sasview/releases/latest

▪ Troubleshooting:

• If SasView fails to launch, please try the steps outlined in the SasView 

FAQ: https://www.sasview.org/faq/#why-will-sasview-no-longer-start

If you are having trouble installing and/or running any packages needed, please contact Jeff Krzywon 

(jkrzywon@nist.gov).
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            EXHIBIT 11
                                                        ALLTEL CORPORATION
                                           STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                     (Dollars and Shares in Thousands, except per share amounts)

    For the Years Ended December 31,                      1996           1995            1994           1993            1992
<S>                                                  <C>            <C>              <C>             <C>           <C>
 
    Net income applicable to
      common shares                                   $290,666       $353,458        $270,521        $260,439       $226,894
    Adjustments for convertible securities:
      preferred stocks                                     220            236             258             293            355

    Net income applicable to common
      shares, assuming conversion
      of above securities                             $290,886       $353,694        $270,779        $260,732       $227,249


    Average common shares outstanding
      for the year including equivalents               190,370        190,072         189,454         187,665        185,672
    Increase in shares which would
      result from conversion of
      convertible preferred stocks                         559            603             670             755            905
    Average common shares, assuming
      conversion of the above securities               190,929        190,675         190,124         188,420        186,577


    Earnings per share of
      common stock:

      Primary                                            $1.53          $1.86           $1.43           $1.39          $1.22
      Fully-diluted                                      $1.52          $1.85           $1.42           $1.38          $1.22

    Note:  Amounts have been restated for mergers accounted for as a pooling-of-interests.
</TABLE>
                                                                 27
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 99



                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 Quarterly Report of Historic Preservation Properties 1989
LP ("HPP'89") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report")
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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 HPP'89.


/s/ Terrence P. Sullivan
-----------------------------
Terrence P. Sullivan
General Partner
(Acting as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer)



Date:  November 8, 2002
       ----------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000839871
<NAME>                        BLACK WARRIOR WIRELINE CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         509,457
<SECURITIES>                                   50,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,299,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   992,881
<INVENTORY>                                    4,641,356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,081,261
<PP&E>                                         18,932,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,233,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 37,618,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          55,920,670
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,739
<OTHER-SE>                                     (583,393)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   55,920,670
<SALES>                                        9,458,689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,735,055
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,715,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,054,568
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,162,426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,638,446)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,638,446)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                968,575
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,329,478)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.38)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

 

 

 

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THEREGISTRANT**

| Name of Subsidiaries                | State of Incorporation                             | Names Under Which They do Business                         |
|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Beaver Lake Concrete, Inc.          | Arkansas             | Beaver Lake Concrete, Inc.                                 |
| Capitol Concrete Products Co., Inc. | Kansas                                                                           | Capitol Concrete Products Co., Inc.                        |
| City Wide Construction Products Co. | Missouri                                                                    | City Wide Construction Products Co.                        |
| Concrete Enterprises, Inc.          | Kansas                                                                           | Concrete Enterprises, Inc.                                 |
| Concrete Materials, Inc.            | Kansas                                                                           | Concrete Materials, Inc.                                   |
| Dodge City Concrete, Inc.           | Kansas                                                                           | Dodge City Concrete, Inc.                                  |
| Joplin Concrete Company, Inc.       | Missouri                                                                         | Joplin Concrete Company, Inc.                              |
| Kansas Sand and Concrete, Inc.      | Kansas                                                                           | Kansas Sand and Concrete, Inc.                             |
| Monarch Cement of Iowa, Inc.        | Iowa                                                                             | Monarch Cement of Iowa, Inc.                               |
| Salina Concrete Products, Inc.      | Kansas                                                                           | Kansas Building Products    Salina Concrete Products, Inc. |
| Springfield Ready Mix Co.           | Missouri                                                                         | Springfield Ready Mix Co.                                  |
| Tulsa Dynaspan, Inc.                | Oklahoma                                                               | Arrow Concrete Company    Tulsa Dynaspan, Inc.             |
Order entered October 

# (8, 2012 -.**~-·---** -·- -- -·- --

In The 

# QCourt of**appea~ --.~-----~--** 



## jfiftb**11Bi~trirt** 

# of**~exa~** 

# at**1JBalla~** No. 05-12-00234-CR No. 05-12-00235-CR No. 05-12-00236-CR No. 05-12-00237-CR No. 05-12-00238-CR No. 05-12-00239-CR ROBERT DOUGLAS GINTER, Appellant 

# v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 199-81522-10, 199-81898-10, 199-81899-10, 199-81900-10, 199-81901-10, 199-8102-10 

### ORDER The Court ORDERS court reporter Niki Garcia to file, within FWI'EEN DAYS ofthe date ofthis order, a supplemental record containing Defendant's Exhibit no. 1, CD of jail calls. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies ofthis order, by electronic transmission, to Niki Garcia, 207 Royal Oaks Place, Denton, Texas 76210, and to counsel for all parties.

# C)_JL~ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 6, 2006 (the “Report”) of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marguerite N. Duffy, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

 

| Date: | August 8, 2006 | /s/ Marguerite N. Duffy |    |
|-------|----------------|-------------------------|--------------|

Marguerite N. Duffy

Senior Vice President and 

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE> 1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

    The following is a list of the Company's subsidiaries as of December 31,
1996, except for unnamed subsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate as a
single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                           Percentage of
                                                                                                            Voting Power
                                                                                                              Owned by
                                                                                                              Monsanto
                                                                                                           -------------
<S>                                                                                                       <C>
G. D. Searle & Co. (Delaware Corporation)...............................................................        100

Monsanto Europe, S.A. (Belgian Corporation).............................................................        100

Monsanto International Holdings, Inc.
    (Delaware Corporation)..............................................................................        100

Monsanto International Sales Company, Inc.
    (Virgin Islands Corporation)........................................................................        100

Monsanto p.l.c. (United Kingdom Corporation)............................................................        100
</TABLE>

                                       24
#### *Eva*Reader *v.*Jacob Schickiser.

Deeds — Reformation—Mistake—Evidence.

A court will not reform a deed 'upon the testimony of the- grantor alone as to a mistake, where the conveyance accomplished the object which the grantor desires, where she understands the English language sufficiently to comprehend ordinary business transactions.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 18, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

Before a court of equity will undertake to reform a written contract between parties upon the ground of mistake, it must be clearly shown by the proof that the party is entitled to the relief. In this case the draftsman of the deed says that the appellant wanted the property embraced by the deed so conveyed as to exclude her intended husband, “giving her the benefit during life and remainder to go to her children.” Upon cross-examination he again repeats that he so understood the grantor and supposed she fully comprehended what she was doing. This witness states that a short time after the execution of the deed the appellant informed him that she had entirely misapprehended the character of the estate she was conveying and he thinks there was a mistake with reference to it. All the evidence upon which this relief is sought is based upon the statements by the grantor subsequent to its execution: Neither the draftsman nor any one else can or does testify as to any mistake except from- William Reader’s statements, unless you confine the *99testimony to the witness preparing the instruments at the time of its execution. He says that he wrote it as he understood the party wanted it. It is shown that the appellant understood the English language well enough to comprehend her business transactions, and that her sole object has been to secure or give this property at her death to her children. She called upon her attorney, Richardson, to write her will and devise this property to pass to h.er children at her death. It was. then that her attorney advised her that by the conveyance now sought to be reformed her children already owned the property, subject to her life estate. Why she wants to reform the deed is not easily explained when it clearly appears that it passes to the children the very estate she wants them to have at her death. This property is shown to be valuable and productive. She has the sole use of it during life, and we perceive no reason from the evidence in the case for reforming the deed. We would be reluctant, too, in attempting to alter the legal effect of such an instrument based alone on the statements and testimony of the grantor. If the daughter and son-in-law, who are of full age, are of the opinion that the mother should have the property they can convey their interest to her by deed. This court will not divest the infants of title.

*Richardson, for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*

Judgment *affirmed.*