alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin BURLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-15593

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 6, 2009.

*855Patricia D. Barksdale, Jacksonville FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Noel G. Lawrence, Lawrence & Parker, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After accepting appellant’s plea of guilty to distribution cocaine base (“crack cocaine”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), the district court sentenced him to prison for a term of 160 months. He now appeals his sentence, contending that it is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not appropriately weigh the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, giving too much weight to his criminal history and not enough to the underlying offense and his personal characteristics. He also contends that the court made a “mechanistic application” of the Sentencing Guidelines, rather than taking into account the particular circumstances of his case.

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Appellant “bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record [before the sentencing court] and the factors in section 3553(a).” *United States v. Talley,*431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005). Though sentences within the Guidelines sentence range are not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, the Guidelines are considered to be “central to the sentencing process” and the imposition of a sentence within the Guidelines sentence range would ordinarily be expected to be reasonable. *Id.*at 787, 788.

It is clear from the record that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors—both favorable and unfavorable from appellant’s point of view—in fashioning appellant’s sentence. It is not this court’s role to substitute its judgment for the district court’s. *See United States v. Ame-deo,*487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir.2007) (“The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court ... we will not substitute our own judgement in weighing the relevant factors.”) (citations omitted). Finally, appellant’s contention that the court used a “mechanistic application” of the Guidelines has no support in the record. The court specifically considered the possibility that appellant’s criminal history category of VI *856might overrepresent his actual past behavior and potential for recidivism, but rejected it.

Appellant’s sentence is

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Louis DiNardo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Xicor, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly represents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Xicor, Inc.

                                               By: /s/ Louis DiNardo
                                                   ----------------------------
                                               Name:   Louis DiNardo
                                                    ---------------------------
                                               Title:  Chief Executive Officer
                                                     --------------------------


I, Geraldine N. Hench, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Xicor, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly represents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Xicor, Inc.

                                               By: /s/ Geraldine N. Hench
                                                  -----------------------------
                                               Name:   Geraldine N. Hench
                                                    ---------------------------
                                               Title:  Chief Financial Officer
                                                     --------------------------
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3912 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the exceptions 

process with respect to caps on payments for therapy services under 

the Medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 

Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mrs. LINCOLN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. 

TALENT) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend 

the exceptions process with respect to caps on payments 

for therapy services under the Medicare program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Effective and 

5 Necessary Individual Outpatient Rehabilitation Services 

6 (SENIORS) Act of 2006’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 3912 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXCEPTIONS PROCESS FOR MEDI2 CARE THERAPY CAPS. 

3 Section 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 1395l(g)(5)) is amended by striking ‘‘2006’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘the period beginning on January 1, 2006, and 

6 ending on December 31, 2007,’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust
            2007-BC1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
            whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
            information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
            covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
            reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
            in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
            disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
            fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
            material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
            of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
            this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank
      of New York, as Trustee, and Litton Loan Servicing LP.

Date: March 25, 2008

      /s/ Steve Bailey
      ------------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan Administration
      (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
      Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                     3,601
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    36
<PP&E>                                           9,365
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              285
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,954
<SALES>                                              3
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,416
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   460
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,950
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,362
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,588
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .162
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .162
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.a

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                           18 U.S.C. 1350,

                        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

             SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Regent Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David A. Nelson, in my capacity as Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Accounting 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:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: May 14, 2007                  /S/ DAVID A. NELSON
                                      -------------------
                                      David A. Nelson, Chief Executive
                                      Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-30551 Summary Calendar

MOSES TOOMER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CONNIE BOWSER; CONNIE KENEDY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

(01-CV-473)

October 9, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Moses Toomer, Louisi ana prisoner # 315519, appeals the

district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. He asserts: Defendants altered one of his prison

grievances by erasing “rejected” and stamping it “accept ed”; and

the “accepted” grievance was forwarded to the district court.

Toomer claims this interfered either with his right of access to

the courts or with his prison grievance proceedings.2

Toomer does not indicate how he was prejudiced in the district

court by Defendants’ alleged action, and he has not established a

claim that he was denied access to the courts. S ee Chriceol v.

Phillips , 169 F.3d 313, 317 (5th Cir. 1999). His contention that

the initial rejection of his grieva nce interfered with his

grievance procedures is also without merit, given his voluntarily

choosing not to attend the hearing to determine whether to restore

his good time credit.

The dismissal as frivolous of this § 1983 complaint was not an

abuse of discretion. Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th

Cir. 1997). This appeal lacks arguable merit and is DISMISSED AS

FRIVOLOUS

. S ee 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King

, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).

The dismissals by the district court and this court count as

two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996). Toomer is W ARNED that,

if he receives a third strike, he may not proceed in forma pauperis

in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated in any

facility, unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical

injury.

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING GIVEN
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LILI HE,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 70274

Agency No. A089

- 479

- 987

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 08 , 2020 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Lili He, a native and citizen of China

, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ ( “BIA”) order dismissing h er appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying h er application s for asylum and withholding

of removal

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 70274

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards

governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v.

Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due

process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738

(9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on significant omissions from H e’s original asylum application and credible

fear interview, particular ly h er claims that s he was arrested and detained in 2007

and subjected to a subsequent monthly reporting requirement

. Shrestha , 590 F.3d

at 1048 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the

cir cumstances ) ; Jiang

, 754 F.3d at 738

- 40 (s ubstantial evidence review is a highly

deferential standard that requires upholding the adverse credibility finding so long

as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence ). He’s ex planations do not

compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.

2011) (agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the

absence of credible testimony, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Additionally, t he agency properly admitted and gave appropriate weight to

the credible fear interview notes that He submitted into evidence . The ag ency also

p rovided He with a sufficient opportunity to explain any perceived inconsistencies3 15

- 70274

or omissions in the record

. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by He’s contentions

on appeal that the agency violated her right to due process by failing to provid e her

with a full and fair hearing. Gutierrez v. Holder , 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir.

2011) ( a court will grant a petition on due process grounds only if the proceeding

was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably

presenting h is case ) (citations and quotation marks omitted)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Christian Curts, Petitioner, v Douglas A. Randall, Judge, County of Monroe, Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 771]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to annul a determination of respondent. The determination revoked the pistol permit of petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously annulled on the law without costs and the petition is granted.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination, after a hearing, revoking his pistol permit. Respondent initially temporarily suspended petitioner’s pistol permit after petitioner was arrested for menacing in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 120.14 [1]). Petitioner was subsequently acquitted of the menacing charge, but respondent nevertheless permanently revoked the permit. We agree with petitioner that the determination is arbitrary and capricious, and constitutes an abuse of discretion inasmuch as the record from the hearing is devoid of any evidence upon which respondent could have based his determination *(see Matter of Papaioannou v Kelly,*14 AD3d 459, 460 [2005]; *see generally Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health,*90 NY2d 227, 240 [1997]). We further agree with petitioner that his due process rights were violated inasmuch as the record from the hearing does not demonstrate that he was afforded the opportunity to review the alleged documentation upon which respondent based his determination *(see Matter of La Grange v Bruhn,*276 AD2d 974, 975 [2000]). We therefore annul the determination. We note, however, that our determination does not preclude the commencement of a *1453new revocation proceeding *(see Matter of Demchik v Hannigan,*182 AD2d 1133, 1133 [1992]). Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30936]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or 
Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088936XX; withdrawal

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is to inform the public of the withdrawal of an 
invalid notice published on December 30, 2014 at 79 FR 78433.

DATES: As of January 6, 2015 the notice published December 30, 2014 at 
79 FR 78433 are withdrawn.
    Reference: AP088936XX.

Lloyd Ellis,
Program Specialist, Office of the General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-30936 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.000
<CASH>                                            435,425
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,718,546
<ALLOWANCES>                                      434,000
<INVENTORY>                                     5,170,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                9,153,427
<PP&E>                                          8,013,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                  6,891,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,249,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,259,378
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           92,710
<OTHER-SE>                                      5,120,849
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,249,470
<SALES>                                         6,400,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,400,193
<CGS>                                           4,116,836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,168,312
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                116,210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (1,165)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (3,160)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 1,955
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                        1,995
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .00



</TABLE>