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

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 31, 2010

Decided April 30, 2010

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐3325

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

FRANCISCO PEREZ‐SOLIS,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

South Bend Division.

No. 3:09‐CR‐00077‐RLM‐1

Robert L. Miller, Jr.,

Judge.

O R D E R

Francisco Perez‐Solis pleaded guilty to using a telephone to facilitate a drug offense,

21 U.S.C. § 843(b), after he served as a Spanish‐English translator during two calls between

his roommate and a prospective buyer in which they arranged for the sale of eight

kilograms of cocaine. The district court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 48

months’ imprisonment. Id. § 843(d)(1). He appeals, but counsel moves to withdraw because

he cannot identify any nonfrivolous arguments to pursue. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Perez‐Solis did not respond to counsel’s submission. See CIR. R. 51(b).

Considering only the issue presented in counsel’s facially adequate brief, see United States v.

Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002), we grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the

appeal.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09‐3325 Page 2

The sole issue identified by counsel is whether Perez‐Solis could challenge the

reasonableness of his prison sentence, and we agree that any such challenge would be

frivolous. The district court properly determined that Perez‐Solis’s guidelines range of 97 to

121 months’ imprisonment exceeded the 48‐month statutory maximum, and therefore that

maximum became the guidelines sentence, see 5 U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). Because Perez‐Solis’s

sentence was within the properly calculated guidelines range, we would presume it to be

reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Sawyer, 558 F.3d

705, 714‐15 (7th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, the district court properly applied the factors

enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court acknowledged Perez‐Solis’s role as a

translator, but highlighted the circumstances of the offense, which included a substantial

quantity of drugs and Perez‐Solis’s instrumental participation in the sales. The court also

considered Perez‐Solis’s personal characteristics, noting his prior marijuana use and

substantial alcohol consumption while on supervised release, as well as his unlawful

presence in the United States.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

**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 Ruby Tuesday, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 2, 2009 (the “Report”), 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 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, 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 3, 2009 | /s/ Marguerite N. Duffy   |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------|

Marguerite N. Duffy

Senior Vice President and 

Chief Financial Officer
#### Robin James TOWNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bryan C. WARD, individually; Gunther M. Hinz, individually; John M. Fitzgerald, individually, Defendants-Appellees, and Town of Moorefield, a municipal corporation, and Department of Public Safety; State of West Virginia, Department of Public Safety, Defendants.

No. 00-2345.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 27, 2001.

Decided May 21, 2001.

Lary D. Garrett, Garrett *&*Garrett, Moorefield, WV; Clyde M. See, Jr., See *&*Downing, Moorefield, WV, for appellant.

Amy Marie Smith, Michael Kozakewich, Jr., Steptoe & Johnson, Clarksburg, *WV;*Daniel A. Ruley, Jr., Morris & Ruley, Parkersburg, WV, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Robin James Towne appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his com*130plaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000), and West Virginia state law. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. *See Towne v. Ward,*No. CA-99-40-2 (N.D.W.Va. July 28, 2000). 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         980,523
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               999,959
<PP&E>                                           7,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,007,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          945,036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,755
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,007,822
<SALES>                                         42,603
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,603
<CGS>                                           34,158
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               610,349
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               601,904
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (15,939)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (585,965)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (585,965)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
NIST is a scientific leader

(example: Atomic, Molecular, Optical science)

Pursuit of scientific excellence and leadership

 Outstanding scientific & technological breakthroughs

 Basis for the core mission of metrology 

 Strong administrative support and funding 
Challenges in Precision Science 

Help answer some central challenges in many areas of physics:

• Measurement science frontier 

• Quantum many-body physics (CM)

• High energy and nuclear physics (symmetry, gravitation) 

• Unknown territories (“dark” physics), connection to astrophysics

• Impact to chemistry and biology 

Ultraprecise Ultrafast Ultracold & Quantum Theory

Understanding physical systems

with “clock” precision and control

AMO physics  Optical atomic clock
Excellent staff members

Scientists, postdocs, graduate students

Top scientists collaborate closely 

creating an intellectually rich environment 

Postdocs from some of the best institutions 

bringing new ideas & experiences, spreading NIST science & technology 

Graduate students from internationally top pools 

working on challenging experiments, familiar with modern technologies, 

resourceful, creative, persistent, and “Yes we can”. 

They are the best source for the next generation workforce, including at NIST

A scientifically open environment 

fostering creative thinking, strong collaboration, cross-fertilization between 

science and technology, attracting the very best minds all over the world
• Galileo’s telescope x20 • Ramsey’s spectroscopy • Optical frequency comb

Science always opens new windows, allowing us to see new phenomena, and will 

inspire us to do new things we would have never dreamed of doing before

Optical nose for

medicine, environment, industry 

Microwave

Laser 106 :1 

Reduction Gear

Science often takes unexpected turns
USGv6 Test Selection Tables 

Intrusion Detection Systems

F18-Conformance: Network Protection Capabilities R1v1.2

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267B Revision 1 USGv6 Profile – November 2020.

Test Specification Id: 

• [NPP] Network Protection Products Test Specification, [editor: UNH InterOperability Laboratory]. 

Intrusion Detection Systems Test Check List

Reference Test Specification 

Id Test Number Device Type

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.1.1: Configuration of Protective Functionality NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.1.2: Configuration of Logging and Alert Facility 

Configurations NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.1.3: Selectively Restricting Rights to the Administrative 

Interface NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.1.4: Individual Rights NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.1.5: Administrative Communications NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.1.6: Persistence of Device Settings NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.1.7: Logging of Configuration Change NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.1.8: Fragmented Packet NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.1.9: Tunneled Traffic (A)(B)(C)(D) NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.3.1: Known Attack Detection NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.3.2: Fragmented Packet Attacks NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.3.3: Port-Scanning Detection (A)(B) NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.3.4: Tunnel Traffic Detection (A)(B)(C)(D) NPP

USGv6-R1 NPP NPP.3.5: Fail-Safe NPP

References: 

• [NIST IPv6 Profile] “NIST IPv6 Profile”, NIST Special Publication (NIST SP) – 500-267Ar1, November 

2020.

• [USGv6-R1] “USGv6 Profile”, NIST Special Publication (NIST SP) – 500-267Br1, November 2020.

The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies 

tests applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
#### Daniel Monarch, et al., *v.*John P. Young, et al.

Counterclaim — Damages—Evidence—Measure of Damages.

In a suit to collect the price of machinery sold, the defendant cannot recover on his counterclaim where there is no proof showing the amount of damages sustained hy reason of the failure of plaintiff to deliver the machinery promptly.

Measure of Damages.

Remote and uncertain damages cannot he recovered under a counterclaim filed in a suit for the purchase money of machinery.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

November 18, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

If the peremptory instructions can be regarded as erroneous, it could only have affected the question of costs, and from the evidence in the case we are inclined to concur with the court below that no cause of action had been made out on the counterclaim. There was no evidence that the appellant had sustained any damages, except such as might be implied by the failure of the appellees to the cross-action, to furnish the machinery in the time required by the contract. The damages on this branch of the case, if any were sustained, are too remote and uncertain, the true criterion being the difference between the price agreed to be paid by the contract and what appellant was compelled to pay by reason of the failure of appellees to comply.

The evidence shows that appellants paid $185 more in whiskey for the machinery not furnished, than what they had' agreed to pay the appellees in money. Whether the whiskey thus furnished was of more value than the $1,000 does not appear; nor is it shown that this extra price in whiskey was the result of the failure of appellees to furnish the machinery. The evidence of appellant shows that those who furnished the machinery were, under the original contract, to perform part of the work, and although it may not have been the particular part not purchased, still the only damages sustained by appellant, according to his own showing, is that the rent of the distillery was worth so much per month, and therefore he is entitled to recover the amount of rent from the time the machinery was to be furnished until it was actually delivered. The statement of the proposition is of itself conclusive against the right of recovery. No direct damages have been shown. What expenses were incurred, *233or the amount paid the hands out of employment, or that were not employed at other work, is not made to appear. There is nothing in appellants’ defense. The judgment *.affirmed.*Judge Cofer not sitting.

*G. W. Williams, for appellants.*

*Sweeney & Stuart, for appellees.*
Form of Guarantee by CarrAmerica Realty Corporation



 Exhibit 4.3 
  
 GUARANTEE 
  
 CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, a Maryland corporation (herein referred to as the “Guarantor,” which term includes any successor Guarantor under
the indenture dated as of June 23, 2004 (the “Indenture”) between CarrAmerica Realty Operating Partnership, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”), CarrAmerica Realty, L.P., the Guarantor and U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as the trustee (the “Trustee”), referred to in the Note upon which this notation is endorsed), (i) has unconditionally guaranteed that (a) the principal of, interest and premium, if any, on the 5.500% Senior Notes
due 2010 (the “Notes”) will be promptly paid in full when due, subject to any applicable grace period, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise and interest on the overdue principal of, and interest on interest, to the
extent lawful, and premium, if any, on the Notes and all other obligations of the Operating Partnership to the Holders (as defined in the Indenture) or the Trustee under the Indenture or the Notes will be promptly paid in full, all in accordance
with the terms set forth in the Indenture and Notes; and (b) in case of any extension of time of payment or renewal of the Notes or of any such other obligations, the same will be promptly paid in full when due in accordance with the terms of
the extension or renewal, subject to any applicable grace period, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, (ii) has agreed to pay any and all costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) incurred by the
Trustee or any Holder in enforcing any rights under this guarantee; provided, however, that this guarantee is limited as to the Guarantor to the extent necessary not to constitute a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer. 
  
 No stockholder, officer, director, or incorporator, as such, past, present or
future, of any Guarantor shall have any personal liability under this guarantee by reason of his or its status as such stockholder, officer, director or incorporator. 
  
 This guarantee shall be binding upon the undersigned and, to the extent provided in the Indenture, its successors and
assigns and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Trustee and the Holders and, in the event of any transfer or assignment of rights by any Holder or the Trustee, the rights and privileges herein conferred upon that party
shall automatically extend to and be vested in such transferee or assignee, all subject to the terms and conditions hereof. 
  
 This guarantee shall not be valid or obligatory for any purpose until the certificate of authentication on the Note upon which this guarantee is noted
shall have been executed by the Trustee under the Indenture by the manual signature of one of its authorized officers. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Guarantor has caused this guarantee to be duly executed by its authorized
officer. 
  
 Dated: December 13, 2005 
  

			
	CARRAMERICA REALTY CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	  


	Name:	 	Stephen E. Riffee
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1

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 Huntsman International LLC (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, 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 to my knowledge:



|/s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
OfficerMarch 28, 2003 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

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.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Huntsman International LLC and will be retained by Huntsman International LLC and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
EX-10.25



 Exhibit 10.25 

English Summary of Finnish language lease agreement dated June 27, 2013 and clarification agreement dated October 24, 2013 (the Lease)
currently by and between Elo Mutual Pension Insurance Company (the Landlord) and Biotie Therapies Corp. (the Tenant). 
  

	 	•	 	Leased property: The Tenant leases from the Landlord office premises of approximately 525.5 square meters, storage space of 50 square meters and 12 parking spaces located in the underground car park (the
Premises) in the address Joukahaisenkatu 6, FI-20520 Turku, Finland. The Lease was signed prior to the completion of the building and was originally entered into with YIT Rakennus Oy and subsequently transferred to Elo Mutual Pension
Insurance Company. 

  

	 	•	 	Term: The initial term of the agreement is three years beginning December 1, 2013. Unless either party has given notice six months prior to the end of the initial term, the lease will continue from December 1,
2016 with a mutual six month notice period. 

  

	 	•	 	Deposit: The Tenant must provide a bank guarantee or other security accepted by the Landlord amounting to a sum equivalent of three month’s capital and maintenance rent including value-added tax.


  

	 	•	 	Permitted use: The Premises are leased for office use as well as storage and parking use related thereto. The Tenant is obliged to use the Premises for purposes that entitle to full deduction of value-added tax.


  

	 	•	 	Sublease: The Tenant is not allowed to transfer any rights or obligations of the lease without the prior written consent of the Landlord. The Landlord has an unrestricted right to transfer the title of the shares
entitling to the possession of the business premises to a third party without the Tenant’s right to terminate the Lease. 

  

	 	•	 	Rent: The rent consists of a capital and maintenance rent. At the time of signing the clarification agreement, the monthly capital rent was EUR 8,679.90 for the office premises, EUR 325.30 for the storage space
and EUR 1,219.30 for the parking spaces. The monthly capital rents are adjusted semi-annually based on the Finnish Cost-of-living Index maintained by Statistics Finland, the Finnish public authority specifically established for statistics. The
monthly maintenance rent payable by the Tenant is based upon the budgeted costs of the real estate company for the upkeep of the property, corrected annually for the actual costs incurred. At the time of the signing of the clarification agreement
the monthly maintenance rent was EUR 2,716.65. 

  

	 	•	 	Insurances: Under the Lease, the Tenant procures and maintains the necessary permits and insurances. 

  

	 	•	 	Termination: See above “Term” for a description of the applicable notice periods. The statutory rights of both parties under Finnish law to terminate the Lease remain unaltered.
Process for void-free metallic 

diffraction gratings for enhanced Xray interferometry imaging

Patent Application 17/972,816

Description 

Problem: 

Improvement is needed in X-ray phase 

contrast imaging systems for better 

imaging outcomes for soft tissues 

without the need for radioactive contrast 

agents.

Invention:

A process for creating a metallic 

diffraction grating with recessed 

features that is optimized for metallic 

void-free filling by electrodeposition. 

 CONTACT 

Technology Partnerships Office (TPO)

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

TPO@NIST.GOV 

Benefits

Commercial Applications:

- X-ray interferometry

- X-ray phase contrast imaging

- X-ray wave-front-sensing

- Optics characterization

- Optics alignment

- Focus characterization at X-ray

free-electron lasers (XFELs)

- Biomedicine

- Materials Science

- Security

Competitive Advantages:

- Minimal deposits on the field

- Reduction in post-deposition 

processing time.

- Void-free filled recessed feature with

- highly uniform filling profiles.

Also see patents 11,579,344 and 10,889,908
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

IT IS ORDERED..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0."is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



IT IS SO ORDERED



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

BRENT PAUL GRUBBS 08-00267-001

10531-003

08-27-2009

Carlos Williams

✔

✔

200 160 months

08-27-2009

05-21-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District 

Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.05.19 15:04:19 -06'00'

Case 1:08-cr-00267-CG-B Document 50 Filed 05/21/15 Page 1 of 1