alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

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

	
	


	




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,

		 that the motion is:

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

the last judgment issued) of months  ! "# .

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

		.

Order Date:

Judge’s signature

Effective Date:

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

OTTO DAVION THOMPSON 06-00176-002

09552-003

03/29/2005

06/04/2008 Pro Se

✔

✔

188 151 months

03/29/2005

04/13/2012 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 818 Filed 04/13/12 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sarah Darlene SONNIER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30787

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

Camille Ann Domingue, Brett L. Gray-son, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sarah Darlene Sonnier, federal prisoner # 11903-035, pleaded guilty to interstate travel in aid of unlawful activity and was sentenced to 57 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. She appeals the district court’s denial of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging her sentence. The district court granted a certificate of appealability. Sonnier argues that her sentence was imposed in violation of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and that *Booker*applies retroactively on collateral review. Sonnier concedes that her argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but raises it to preserve further review. In *United States v. Gentry,*432 F.3d 600, 604 (5th Cir.2005), we held that *Booker*is not retroactively applicable to initial § 2255 motions.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### In the Matter of Crystal S. Reaves, Respondent, v Gregory L. Jones, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 186]

Rose, J.E

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Connerton, J.), entered March 23, 2012, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, among other things, denied respondent’s objections to the order of a Support Magistrate.

Petitioner and respondent are the parents of a daughter (born in 2008). In November 2011, petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging that respondent was in violation of a court order mandating that he pay 50% of the child’s day-care expenses. After respondent failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, the Support Magistrate found him in willful violation of his child support obligation and entered a money judgment for the ar*1277rears. Respondent then wrote to Family Court objecting to the judgment and requesting another hearing. Family Court denied respondent’s objections based on his failure to move to vacate the default. The court further advised respondent that it would “forward [his] correspondence to the Support Magistrate for . . . consideration and for determination if it is sufficient to constitute a motion filed pursuant to [CPLR] 5015.” When respondent heard nothing further, he filed this appeal from Family Court’s order.

Respondent concedes that he failed to appear and that he failed to utilize the proper remedy of moving before the Support Magistrate to vacate the default (see CPLR 5015 [a]; *Matter of Ball v Marshall,*103 AD3d 1270, 1271 [2013]; *Matter of Chautauqua County Dept. of Social Servs. v Rita M.S.,*94 AD3d 1509, 1510 [2012]; *Matter of Garland v Garland,*28 AD3d 481, 481-482 [2006]). Accordingly, Family Court properly denied his objections and, in our view, the court’s offer to forward the papers to the Support Magistrate did not excuse respondent from making a proper motion, particularly considering that Family Court advised him to do so. Inasmuch as respondent is only entitled to a direct appeal to this Court after making a motion to the Support Magistrate to vacate the default and then, if necessary, filing objections with Family Court *(see*Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; *Matter of Dambrowski v Dambrowski,*8 AD3d 913, 914 [2004]; *Matter of Semonae YY.,*239 AD2d 716, 717 [1997]; *cf. Reynolds v Reynolds,*92 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2012]), the merits of the Support Magistrate’s order are not properly before us.

Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Nov-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  Dec-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    Feb-28-1997
<CASH>                                    3 
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                          1145
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                            4025
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        107
<PP&E>                                  690
<DEPRECIATION>                          493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         5573
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  3693
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                                131
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                             1750
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           5573
<SALES>                                1782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1782
<CGS>                                  1201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           983       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (387)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                           (387)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Appellant, v Pullini Water Services, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[828 NYS2d 130]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendants Pullini Water Services, Inc., and Pullini Water Main & Sewer Contractors, Inc., in an underlying action entitled *Shepp v City of New York,*pending in Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 41613/99, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated May 18, 2005, which denied its motion for leave to enter a default judgment against those defendants based upon their failure to answer or appear in this action and for a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify them in the underlying action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendants Pullini Water Services, Inc., and Pullini Water Main & Sewer Contractors, Inc., in the underlying action entitled *Shepp v City of New York,*pending in Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 41613/99.

The plaintiff commenced this action for a judgment declaring *847that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify the defendants Pullini Water Services, Inc., and Pullini Water Main & Sewer Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter collectively Pullini), in the underlying action based on their lack of cooperation *(see Allstate Ins. Co. v United Intl. Ins. Co.,*16 AD3d 605, 606 [2005]). The plaintiff established its entitlement to a default judgment against Pullini based on Pullini’s failure to answer or appear in this action *(see*CPLR 3215 [f]). The plaintiff established, through affidavits of its employee and of private investigators, as well as written correspondence, that it made diligent efforts to secure Pullini’s cooperation, that the efforts were reasonably calculated to obtain that cooperation, and that Pullini willfully obstructed the plaintiffs defense of the underlying action *(see Utica First Ins. Co. v Arken, Inc.,*18 AD3d 644, 645 [2005]). Given that the plaintiff commenced this action within one week of its last efforts to obtain Pullini’s cooperation, the Supreme Court erred in finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with Insurance Law § 3420 (d) *(see generally Pennsylvania Lumbermans Mut. Ins. Co. v D & Sons Constr. Corp.,*18 AD3d 843 [2005]; *Republic Franklin Ins. Co. v Pistilli,*16 AD3d 477 [2005]; *Generali-U.S. Branch v Rothschild,*295 AD2d 236, 237-238 [2002]). Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXELY
ACT OF 2002



I, Sandesh Seth, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the report on Form 10-K of Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: July 13, 2020 | By: | /s/ Sandesh Seth                                                                           
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Sandesh Seth                                                                               
|                     |     | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Duly Authorized Officer,
Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified
(the “Report”), I, Anthony W. Adler, as Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(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.





Date:  December
20, 2010





/s/
      Anthony W. AdlerAnthony
      W. AdlerPrincipal
      Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Oree, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 9]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered March 12, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, and escape in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The injured detective testified that he tackled defendant, who was trying to escape, and that as a result defendant caused the detective’s hand and knee to strike the pavement with a force equivalent to that of a *474fist hitting a wall. The detective testified that this caused pain, a deep abrasion to the middle finger of the hand resulting in bleeding, and swelling and bruising to the thumb requiring pain medication and icing for a period of a week. The detective also testified that he sustained an injury to his knee which persisted for 10 to 12 days, hampered his ability to go up and down stairs, and also required pain medication and icing. The detective was treated at the scene by an emergency medical technician, and his injuries were also described by a fellow officer who testified that blood was dripping down the detective’s arm to his elbow.

This testimony established the element of physical injury beyond a reasonable doubt *(see e.g. People v Harvey,*309 AD2d 713 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 573 [2003]). To establish that element, the People need only establish that a victim’s injuries were more than mere “petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like” *(Matter of Philip A.,*49 NY2d 198, 200 [1980]). Relatively minor injuries causing moderate, but “more than slight or trivial pain” may suffice *(see People v Chiddick,*8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007] [fingernail injury]), as may injuries that did not lead to any medical treatment *(see People v Guidice,*83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s finding that the statutory threshold was met.

The procedure under which defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender was not unconstitutional *(see Almendarez-Torres v United States,*523 US 224 [1998]; *People v Leon,*10 NY3d 122, 126 [2008], *cert denied*554 US —, 128 S Ct 2976 [2008]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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; and

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

|By /s/GEORGE G. USHERGeorge G. Usher,
Chief Executive Officer
September 13, 2002 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

22

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32

Certification Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)


Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the
undersigned General Partners of TASA Products Limited, a Washington limited
partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such General
Partner's knowledge and belief, that:

1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Form 10-K) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/MICHEL E. MAES                       /s/JAMES R. STEFFEY
Michel E. Maes                          James R. Steffey
Co-General Partner                      Co-General Partner
Date: 8-10-05                           Date: 8-10-05
#### State v. Perdomo

Case below: 182 N.C. App.-(17 April 2007)

No. 246P07

1. Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-651)

2. AG’s Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Denied 10/11/07

2. Dismissed as Moot 10/11/07
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jason Preston Gross, * From the 35th District Court

 of Brown County

Trial Court No. CR23658.

Vs. No. 11-17-00060-CR * February 14, 2019

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

 (Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 73953 ]

Pursuant to Rule 431 [1]            of the Rules of Practice, the petition of NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC for review of the staff's action in disapproving by delegated authority File No. SR-Phlx-2013-113 [2]            is granted.

It is *ordered,* pursuant to Rule 431 that any party or other person may file a statement in support of or in opposition to the action made by delegated authority on or before January 20, 2015, and

The order disapproving such proposed rule change shall remain in effect.

By the Commission.

Brent J. Fields,

 Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.     17 CFR 201.431.
        Back to Citation      

2.     *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72633 (July 16, 2014), 79 FR 42578 (July 22, 2014).
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2014-30812 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2482 

To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the accessibility 

of mental health care providers and services for members of the Armed 

Forces serving on active duty, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2023 

Mr. BUCHANAN (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia, and Ms. PETTERSEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study 

on the accessibility of mental health care providers and 

services for members of the Armed Forces serving on 

active duty, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY ON ACCESSABILITY OF MENTAL 

4 HEALTH PROVIDERS AND SERVICES FOR AC5 TIVE DUTY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

6 FORCES. 

7 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Defense shall conduct 

8 a study on the accessibility of mental health care providers 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2482 IH

1 and services for members of the Armed Forces serving on 

2 active duty, including an assessment of— 

3 (1) the accessibility of mental health care pro4 viders on military installations; 

5 (2) the accessibility of inpatient services for 

6 mental health care for such members; and 

7 (3) steps that may be taken to improve such ac8 cessibility. 

9 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

10 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 

11 shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

12 House of Representatives and the Senate a report con13 taining the findings of the study under subsection (a). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO THE 
 MYERS
INDUSTRIES, INC. 
 EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN 

WHEREAS, Myers Industries, Inc. (the “Employer”) established the Myers Industries, Inc. Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan (the
“Plan”), effective January 1, 1997; 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.7 of the Plan, the Employer may amend or modify
any provision of the Plan, provided that no such action shall reduce the benefits or rights of any Participant or his Beneficiary accrued prior to the date of any such amendment; and 

WHEREAS, the Employer desires to amend the Plan with respect to the reference to the interest rate used for purposes of calculating an
Actuarial Equivalent form of benefit. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective August 12, 2015 as follows: 

Section 2.1 of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

“Section 2.1 The term “Actuarial Equivalent” shall mean a benefit of equivalent value when computed using a per annum interest
rate as determined by reference to the applicable segment spot rates under Section 417(e) of the Internal Revenue Code as of the Participant’s Retirement Date or date of other separation from service.” 

All other provisions of the Plan are unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly adopted and executed as of this 12 day of August, 2015. 

 

			
	 “EMPLOYER”
 MYERS
INDUSTRIES, INC.

	
	 /s/ Greggory W. Branning

	By:	 	Greggory W. Branning
	Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary
[906 NE2d 1057, 879 NYS2d 25]

#### In the Matter of Joseph S. Alessandro.

Decided March 26, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Paul DerOhannesian*for petitioner.

*Robert H. Tembeckjian*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On the Court’s own motion, it is determined that Honorable Joseph S. Alessandro is suspended, with pay, effective immediately, from the office of Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, pending disposition of his request for review of a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.