alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Ernesto L. BERNARD, aka Nelson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-1482(L).

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 11, 2001.

*19Gerald E. Bodell, New York, NY, for appellant.

Robert M. Appleton, Bridgeport, CT, Assistant United States Attorney; Stephen C. Robinson, United States Attorney, on the brief, for appellee.

Present OAKES, JACOBS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that counsel’s motion to withdraw pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and the government’s motion for summary affirmance, be granted.

Bernard pled guilty to RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The RICO conspiracy had several predicates, among them drug conspiracy and conspiracy to murder. The general statutory maximum under § 1962 is twenty years. *See*18 U.S.C. § 1963(a). However, if any of the predicate felonies carries a maximum term of life imprisonment, that maximum applies. *See id.*Judge Nevas sentenced Bernard chiefly to 405 months imprisonment, a sentence that could not stand unless one of the predicates carries a life maximum.

Drug quantity was not specified in the indictment nor discussed in the allocution, and was instead determined by a preponderance of the evidence by the district court in reliance on the pre-sentence report. The quantity of narcotics attributed to Bernard pushed the maximum statutory sentence for this predicate to life imprisonment. *See*18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). However, any reliance Bernard might arguably place on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is obviated by the fact that Bernard’s conspiracy to murder predicate *also*carried a life maximum. *See*18 U.S.C. § 1117.

We find that “counsel has diligently searched the record for any arguably meritorious issue in support of his client’s appeal,” and that “defense counsel’s declaration that the appeal would be frivolous is, in fact, legally correct.” *United States v. Burnett,*989 F.2d 100, 102 (2d Cir.1993).

For the reasons set forth above, the motions are hereby granted.
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) ALSD Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Page 1 of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

United States of America

)

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No:

USM No:

Date of Original Judgment:

Date of Previous Amended Judgment:

(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)

Upon motion of the defendant the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10

and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

DENIED. GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

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

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date:

Judge’s signature

Effective Date:

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

BYRON LEE PHILLIPS 13-00060-CB-B

72719-079

Sept. 21, 2009

Paul Bradley Murray, Esq.

✔

✔

Sept. 21, 2009

March 11, 2016 s/Charles R. Butler, Jr.

Charles R. Butler, Jr., Senior United States District Judge

The defendant is not eligible for a reduction of sentence because the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the

defendant’s base offense level or sentencing guideline range. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1.B1.10(a)(2)(B)

(no reduction if amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”). The

defendant was found to be a career offender. (PSR ¶ 29.) His base offense level and sentencing guideline range were

based on the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Amendment 782 amended the drug quantity guideline, U.S.S.

G. § 2D1.1, but made no change to the career offender guideline.

Case 1:13-cr-00060-CB-B Document 142 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                    Computation of Earnings per Common Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     Three Months Ended             Nine Months Ended
                                        September 30,                 September 30,
                                      2000           1999           2000           1999
                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Basic Earnings
  Net Income to Common Shares      $4,640,048     $1,409,032     $9,054,198     $1,530,984

Basic Shares
  Weighted Average Outstanding      4,309,189      4,290,079      4,329,615      4,255,737


Basic Earnings per Share           $     1.08     $     0.33     $     2.09     $     0.36
                                   ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

Net Income for Diluted Shares       4,713,847      1,409,032      9,275,598      1,597,651
Diluted Shares
  Weighted Average Outstanding      4,901,457      4,290,079      4,783,456      4,322,404


Diluted Earnings per Share         $     0.96     $     0.33     $     1.94     $     0.36
                                   ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
N1-Network Protection Devices

USGv6_NPD_IPS.html[3/30/18, 11:12:28 AM]

USGv6 Test Selection Tables*

Intrusion Protectionn Systems

N4-Conformance: IPS v1.3

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, July 2008.

Configuration Option: IPS 

Test Specification Id:

[Network Protection Devices] Network Protection Devices Test Specification version 1.2, [editor: ICSA Labs ].

Reference:

[Profile-v1] NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, July 2008.

Instrusion Protection Systems Checklist

NOTE: Common NPD Requirements must also be performed.

Reference Test Specification Id Test Number Device Type

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 5.1: Implement instrusion detection capabilities NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 5.2: Stop or attenuate detected attacks & Logging and alerts NPD

* The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies tests applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29514]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-
2736.
Extension: Form 15;
    OMB Control No. 3235-0167, SEC File No. 270-170.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget the request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 15 (17 CFR 249.323) is a certification of termination of a 
class of security under Section 12(g) or notice of suspension of duty 
to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). All information is 
provided to the public for review. We estimate that approximately 811 
issuers file Form 15 annually and it takes approximately 1.5 hours per 
response to prepare for a total of 1,217 annual burden hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this 
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov . 
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: 
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi 
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email 
to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 
days of this notice.

    Dated: December 11, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29514 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statements of Operations and the Consolidated Balance Sheets and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          20,452
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,126
<PP&E>                                         185,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 189,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           204
<OTHER-SE>                                     176,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   189,553
<SALES>                                         34,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,258
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,512
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (942)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (942)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (395)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,337)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.11)


</TABLE>
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 amendment no. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Huntsman International LLC (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Kimo Esplin, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

|/s/J. KIMO ESPLINJ. Kimo Esplin Chief Financial
OfficerNovember 23, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### *A.*E. Porter, Guardian, *v.*E. P. Neal, et al.

Motion for New Trial — Conflicting Evidence.

Where the record fails to show clearly when a motion for new trial was made, the court of appeals will presume it to have been made within the proper time.

*112Conflicting Evidence.

When the evidence is conflicting the court of appeals will not disturb the judgment on that account.

APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

October *2,*1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The verdict of the jury was rendered on April 3, 1873 (Thursday), and the motion for a new trial, as the record recites, was made on April 6, 1873. This date was Sunday, and therefore there must be some mistake as to the day on which the motion was made. If made on the fifth, it was in time, but if on the sixth or seventh it was too late.

It could not have been made either on the fifth or seventh; and as the rule is technical, and the substantial rights of the parties cannot be affected by correcting each error as appears upon the record, we must indulge the presumption that the motion was made within proper time. The answer of the defendants is a plea of payment, and not a set-off, and therefore could be pleaded to the claim of appellant conceding that the action had been instituted in his fiduciary capacity. The petition does not show, that the claim declared on is payable to appellant as a fiduciary, and the word guardian is merely a description *personae,*and there is no reason why a set-off could not have been pleaded as well as the plea of payment.

As there was conflicting proof on the question as to whether or not the parties had agreed to credit the cattle money on the note, this court would not disturb the judgment on that account. As to the rent note of Pates & Bro., the proof from both parties shows that the real amount to be credited was never ascertained, and no acceptance made of it as a payment. The parties disagreed as to the amount to be deducted from this note for the improvements, and for that reason, among others, failed to conclude that settlement.

The instruction of the court to the effect that the jury could allow no claim for rent unless the same was taken and accepted as a payment by plaintiff, would have been proper if there had been evidence upon which to base it. There was no evidence showing that this note was received as payment, but, on the contrary, the proof conduces to show that the amount of the rent had never been agreed on by reason of the disagreement in regard to the improvements. For the reasons indicated, the judgment is *reversed*and cause re*113manded with directions to award a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*H. T. Clark, for appellant.*

*J. A.*Mitchell, *for appellees.*
Exhibit 31.1

            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William J. Bosso, certify that:
       1.       I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Nortia Capital Partners, Inc.;

       2.       Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

       3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,
and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects, the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

       4.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-
15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

        a)      designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;

        b)      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

        c)      disclosed in this report any change in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

       5.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent valuation of our
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or other persons performing the equivalent functions):

        a)      all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

        b)      any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:   August 15, 2006

/S/ WILLIAM J. BOSSO
--------------------------------------
William Bosso, Chief Executive Officer
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


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

.


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

#

"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

OTIS GARLAND JACKSON 12-00068-002

12631-003

11-12-2012

Pro Se

✔

✔

216 185 months

11-12-2012

04-27-2015

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: 2015.04.21 12:42:01 -06'00'

Case 1:12-cr-00068-CG-B Document 483 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDERICK H. LANGE, III, : 

 :

Petitioner, : 

 :

v. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0093-KD-M 

 :

WARDEN HETZEL, : 

 :

Respondent. : 

JUDGMENT

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

Respondent Warden Hetzel and against Petitioner Frederick H. Lange, III.

DONE and ORDERED this the 17th day of June 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DUBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00093-KD-M Document 24 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         366,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,950
<INVENTORY>                                    256,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,676,501
<PP&E>                                       6,593,800
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,266,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,415,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,880,575
<BONDS>                                      5,714,052
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,495,173
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,119,967)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,415,424
<SALES>                                      3,854,560
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,854,560
<CGS>                                          373,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  846,266
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,840,610
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             297,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (605,274)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (605,274)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (605,274)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.28)


</TABLE>