alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4246

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FAYSURI VILLAMIL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:13-cr-00277-BO-1)

Submitted: November 21, 2014 Decided: November 26, 2014

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Faysuri Villamil pled guilty to wire fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012). The district court 

sentenced her to a Guidelines sentence of thirty months’

imprisonment. Villamil appeals, claiming that the district 

court failed to adequately explain its reasons for denying her 

request for a downward variance. We vacate and remand for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In explaining a sentence, the district court is not 

required to “robotically tick through . . . every subsection [of 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)], particularly when imposing a 

within-Guidelines sentence.” United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 

388, 395 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

However, the court “must place on the record an ‘individualized 

assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it

. . . [that] provide[s] a rationale tailored to the particular 

case at hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate 

review.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)) 

(internal citation and footnote omitted).

Villamil argued at sentencing that a downward variance 

was warranted because her conviction subjected her to 

deportation, which would result in great hardship to her, and 

because she had a good work history and no criminal record. 
3

Although the district court mentioned some of these issues

during its questioning of Villamil, the court gave no indication 

why it rejected her arguments for a downward variance and 

selected the sentence it did, other than the statement that the 

chosen sentence was within the Guidelines range. This statement 

is insufficient to provide an individualized explanation of the 

chosen sentence.

Accordingly, we vacate Villamil’s sentence and remand 

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We 

express no opinion about the merits of Villamil’s request for a 

variance. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

VACATED AND REMANDED
#### In the Matter of Nicholas Visconti, Appellant, v Raymond Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Respondents.

[852 NYS2d 117]

Petitioner sustained back injuries in a 1994 line-of-duty accident and a 1999 line-of-duty incident while removing a spare tire from a police vehicle, the latter of which was not an “accident” for pension purposes *(see Matter of Menna v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.,*59 NY2d 696 [1983]).

The Board of Trustees’ determination in 2004 that the 1999 injury was the competent causal factor of petitioner’s disability was supported by some credible evidence, and its ruling was neither arbitrary nor capricious *(see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.,*88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]).

After reevaluating its position as to the cause of petitioner’s disability, in light of the gap in treatment between the two injuries, the Medical Board concluded that the 1999 injury was the competent causal factor. This finding is supported by *274petitioner’s conservative treatment for the 1994 injury, the subsequent gap in treatment, and his return to full duty *(see Matter of Doyle v Kelly,*8 AD3d 125, 126 [2004]; *Matter of Calzerano v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Police Pension Fund, Art. II,*245 AD2d 84 [1997]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**404.1 KA 13-01600**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AMANDA M. LANDO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MITCHELL LAW OFFICE, OSWEGO (RICHARD C. MITCHELL, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GREGORY S. OAKES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (AMY L. HALLENBECK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered September 6, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that her waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. County Court “made clear that the waiver of the right to appeal was a condition of [the] plea, not a consequence thereof, and the record reflects that defendant understood that the waiver of the right to appeal was ‘separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” ( People v Graham , 77 AD3d 1439, 1439, lv denied 15 NY3d 920, quoting People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256). The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant’s further contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe ( see People v Rodman , 104 AD3d 1186, 1188, lv denied 22 NY3d 1202; see generally Lopez , 6 NY3d at 255-256).

Entered: March 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
July 21, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF W.J.B. & J.B., CHILDREN

NO. 14-15-00186-CV

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from an order signed January 28, 2015, was heard on 

the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the 

order. The order of the court below is AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.
May 7, 2013 www.bls.gov

Data Users Advisory Committee (DUAC) Agenda

Kathy Frederickson-Mele • Mele.Kathy@bls.gov • http://www.bls.gov/bls/duac.htm • 202.691.6102

8:30 a.m. Registration 

9:00 a.m. Commissioner’s Welcome and Review of Agency Developments 

(Erica Groshen) 

10:00 a.m. Occupational Requirements Survey — What Are the Options for 

Data Presentation? 

(Hilery Simpson, Bradley Rhein, Eric Frumin)

11:00 a.m. Break 

11:15 a.m. Geographic Display of Data 

(Emily Liddel, Jay Meisenheimer, Wendy Martinez, Margaret Simms)

12:15 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. Outreach Efforts at BLS

• BLS Speaker’s Page and Trending News — Identifying Interesting 

and Timely Topics for Public Presentation 

(Michael Strople, Michael Levi, Ray Stone) 

• EA&I and Local Outreach — Customizing Local Data 

(Michael Strople, Ken Simonson) 

3:00 p.m. A New Approach to Developing and Presenting Occupational 

Replacement Needs (Michael Wolf)

4:15 p.m. Meeting wrap-up
@misc{1145741,
  author = {David S Yaney and Alice D Settle-Raskin},
  title = {National Semiconductor Metrology Program::project portfolio, FY 1996},
  year = {1996},
  month = {1996-01-01 05:01:00},
  publisher = {, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.5851},
  language = {en},
}
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00471-CV

Patrick D. Mahoney 

v.

Janice Pouncy Slaughter and Samori Diallo

NO. 2011-30537 IN THE 270TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

CLK RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$281.00

$175.00

$20.00

10/20/2014

08/26/2014

08/18/2014

07/17/2014

06/12/2014

06/12/2014

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$506.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 
hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this July 17, 2015.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William H. Shea, Jr.,Chief Executive Officer of MainLineManagement LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, to myknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                        | MAINLINE MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of the  Partnership |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |                                                            |
| Date: November 6, 2006 | WILLIAM H. SHEA, JR.                                            |
|                   | William H. Shea, Jr.                                            |
|                   | *Chief Executive Officer*                                       |

 

----
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JAVIER M. LOZANO § APPELLANT § VS. § No. 03-14- THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### § RESPONDENT 

### § 

# COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS NOV 13 2015 

## Abe!Acosta,Clerk

MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

COMES NOW, JAVIER M. LOZANO, APPELLANT in the above styled and numbered 

### cause in an attempt to recieve an extention of time to file his Petition for Discretionary Review and would show the Court the following in supprot; 1) Petitioner has never asked for an extention in this matter and is not doing so now to delay the Court in any way. 

### 2) Petitioner belives that the scope of his cause will require numerous 

### visits to the unit law library,which is sub-standard at best,which will add to the hardship he faces in doing his own PDR. 

### 3) Petitioner is not a student of the law and is not readily able to 

### decifer the avenues of law that his cause will require him to be proficiant 

### in and well versed in "legalize" and would ask the Court's indulgence in his submission. PRAYER PETITIONER PRAYS that this Court will review his motion and grant him the time extention asked for. 

## FILED IN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

### Z^ .fi^StPSl JAVIER M. LOZANO 

### Abel Acosta, ClerkCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A TRUE COPY OF THE FOREGOING WAS PLACED IN THE T D C J MAILBOX WITH FIRST CLASS POSTAGE TO BOTH THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS P.O. BOX 12308 AUSTIN,TEXAS AND ALSO TO LISA McMINN STATfi PROS.ATTY. P.O. BOX 

# 13046AUSTIN,TEXASONTHISTHE°JJ^DAYOF aJoU>6sn£^<l^ ,2015.

JAVIER M. LOZANO

CC STATE PROS.ATTY

PERSONAL FILECOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JAVIER M. LOZANO . § PETITIONER § VS 

### § No- 03-14- THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### § RESPONDENT 

### § ORDER THE COURT ON THIS DATE HEARD THE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF 

### TIME TO FILE HIS PDR AND THE COURT WILL [ ] GRANT, [] DENY, SAID MOTION. THE 

# DUE DATE FOR HIS PRDWILL BE ONTHE^f^>K£OF A&&b(/US*f ,2015,or if denied will remain November 23,2015. ORDERED ON THIS THE DAY OF ,2015 

### Judge PresidingCOURT OP CRIMINAL APPEALS 

### JAVIER M. LOZANO § 

### PETITIONER § VS § No. 03-14-00107-CR 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS § RESPONDENT § ORDER THE COURT ON THIS DATE HEARD THE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF 

### TIME TO FILE HIS PDR AND THE COURT KILL [ } GRANT/ [] DENY/ SAIDMOTION. THE 

## DUE DATE FOR HIS PRDMILL BE ONTBB.P)HSftY OF -t~cAUM^f ,2015,or if denied will remain November 23#2015.

• > 

### ORDERED ONTHIS THE DAYOF #2015 

### Jjudge {Presiding

PLEASE RETURN THIS COPY OF ORDER TO PETITIONER. 

## 1
H. Res. 553 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 12, 2019. 

Whereas on September 26, 2017, Roger J. Stone Jr. appeared in Washington, DC, and was interviewed by the 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 

House of Representatives in connection with that Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 

2016 United States election; 

Whereas the Department of Justice requested in a December 

14, 2018, letter to the Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence that the Committee provide a transcript of 

its September 26, 2017, interview with Mr. Stone, as well 

as any other written submissions or correspondence from 

Mr. Stone or his attorneys before and after his interview; 

Whereas on December 20, 2018, pursuant to a bipartisan 

Committee vote on that date authorizing the release of 

Executive Session materials, the then-Chair and ranking 

minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence jointly sent the Department of Justice the 

transcript of Mr. Stone’s September 26, 2017, interview, 

as well as an enumerated list of related materials; 

Whereas on January 24, 2019, Mr. Stone was indicted by a 

grand jury on seven counts, including one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, in violation of sections 

1505 and 2 of title 18, United States Code, and five 
2 

•HRES 553 EH 

counts of making false statements in violation of sections 

1001(a)(2) and 2 of title 18, United States Code; 

Whereas the Department of Justice requested via letter on 

August 20, 2019, that the House voluntarily provide to 

it a copy of the on-the-record portions of the audio 

backup file of Mr. Stone’s September 26, 2017, transcribed interview; 

Whereas by the privileges and rights of the House of Representatives, an audio backup file of Mr. Stone’s transcribed interview may not be taken from the possession 

or control of the Clerk of the House of Representatives 

by mandate of process of the article III courts of the 

United States, and may not be provided pursuant to requests by the court or the parties to United States of 

America v. Stone except at the direction of the House; 

and 

Whereas it is the judgment of the House of Representatives 

that, in the particular circumstances of this case, providing a copy of the on-the-record portions of the audio 

backup file of Mr. Stone’s transcribed interview to the 

prosecuting attorneys in the case of United States v. 

Stone would promote the ends of justice in a manner consistent with the privileges and rights of the House: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives directs the 

Clerk of the House to provide for use at trial a copy of the 

on-the-record portions of the audio backup file of the transcribed interview of Roger J. Stone Jr. that was conducted 

by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 

House of Representatives on September 26, 2017, to the 
3 

•HRES 553 EH 

prosecuting attorneys in the case of United States of America 

v. Stone, No. 1:19-cr-00018–ABJ (D.D.C.). 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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 Quarterly Report of Talmer Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his 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/ David T. Provost    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | David T. Provost        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | May 15, 2014       |
|   |                    |
|   |                    |
|   | /s/ Dennis Klaeser      |
|   | Dennis Klaeser          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 15, 2014       |

 

----
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 Cardiff Lexington Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year  ended
December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Steven Healy, Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge:



1.       The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the 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.



Dated: April 14, 2020



| | By: /s/ Steven Healy                                      
| | ----------------------------------------------------------
| | Steven Healy                                              
| | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting
    Officer)
RECEIVED IN WcUe 0 Milk** *

JUL 16 20J5 rrflrr& UmJ7vO, Boy /!230g

j)^ <WAM^m-k &^%W #/r^ •

I) (Wre. Moo, >> J ' ^^
#### Steven M. Alevy, Doing Business as Bankers Capital Realty Advisors, Respondent, v Isaac Uminer, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[852 NYS2d 131]

Defendant had a contractual obligation not to disclose confidential information that he might have acquired during the course of his association with plaintiff, and he agreed to *302refrain, while working for plaintiff, from engaging in any activity, employment, or business arrangement that conflicted with plaintiffs interests. Construing the pleadings liberally and accepting the facts alleged as true *(Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), the motion court properly found that the complaint states a cause of action for breach of a written agreement *(see Minnelli v Soumayah,*41 AD3d 388, 389 [2007]).

The complaint also states a cause of action for breach of an oral agreement, since, as the court found, the oral agreement did not modify the written agreement but was a separate, unrelated agreement and therefore not subject to General Obligations Law § 15-301 *(see Rose v Spa Realty Assoc.,*42 NY2d 338, 343 [1977]).

As to the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, plaintiff alleges that by the time defendant’s employment was terminated, 12 years after he was hired, with no college education and no experience in the business of commercial mortgages, he was managing the day-to-day operations of the company and acting as its de facto chief operating officer. These allegations describe ongoing conduct between the parties that may give rise to a fiduciary relationship *(see Wiener v Lazara Freres & Co.,*241 AD2d 114, 122 [1998]).

The court properly declined to dismiss the prayer for injunctive relief. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 30355(U).]
@misc{1214011,
  author = {Kalyan Ram Kanagala and Amanda Pertzborn},
  title = {Comparison of Ice-on-Coil Thermal Energy Storage Models},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-13 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Technical Note (NIST TN), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956501},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2265},
  language = {en},
}
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 13, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 13, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0464. FRED GARDNER v. DIRECT PROPERTIES, LLC et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2014CV248063
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 78 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 78

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
States postal facility network is an asset of significant value and the 
   United States Postal Service should take appropriate measures to 
maintain, modernize and fully utilize the existing post office network 
                          for economic growth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2019

 Mr. Amodei submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
States postal facility network is an asset of significant value and the 
   United States Postal Service should take appropriate measures to 
maintain, modernize and fully utilize the existing post office network 
                          for economic growth.

Whereas the postal facility network is an integral part of universal service and 
        should be modernized to make universal service relevant for the 21st 
        century;
Whereas the closure of post offices in rural communities would create an 
        economic burden for people in the United States that depend on universal 
        service for communication, package services, and non-typical postal 
        services;
Whereas the closure process of post offices does not adequately take into 
        account community input;
Whereas post offices are recognized as secure and trustworthy, and could 
        function as the location for other government services, community 
        events, and emergency services; and
Whereas post offices have become a part of the identity of rural communities, 
        and provide a significant social value: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures 
to modernize and maintain a post office network.
                                 <all>
```