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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DECEMBER 7, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-15703 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cr-00171-GKS-KRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

GERALDO ANTONIO CEDENO-REYES, 

a.k.a. Melvin Gomez, 

a.k.a. Victor Javier Ocasio Ortega, 

Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(December 7, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Saying his sentence is substantively unreasonable, Geraldo Antonio

Cedeno-Reyes appeals his 39-month total sentence, imposed after pleading guilty

to one count of falsely impersonating a United States citizen, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 911 (“Count 1"), one count of falsely representing a social security

number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (“Count 2"), one count of

aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (“Count 3"), and

one count of illegal reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)

(“Count 4"). 

Briefly stated, the district court imposed its sentence because Cedeno-Reyes

entered the United States after already having been deported, and used a false alias

on 11 occasions in order to take advantage of everything he could. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(1), (2) (nature and circumstances of offense, history of defendant, and

need for deterrence). Further, it considered Cedeno-Reyes’s guilty plea and

cooperation with the government. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)(history of defendant). 

Cedeno-Reyes’s sentence is the minimum possible sentence within the applicable

Guideline range and is more than 18 years less than the maximum statutory

2
penalty of 22 years that he faced. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) (20-year statutory

maximum); 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a), (b) (mandatory consecutive 2-year sentence).

Cedeno-Reyes has not demonstrated that the district court abused its

discretion when it weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that his sentence

was, therefore, substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

3
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Proper Power and Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lior Segal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:  (i)  the accompanying Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); and  (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  PROPER POWER AND ENERGY, INC.  /s/:  Lior Segal LIOR SEGAL, Chief Financial Officer   August 19, 2009
# table46_q5.5_naics
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 21-3162

BRIAN A. DAVIS;

FREDRICKA K. BECKFORD,

Appellants

v.

GEORGE C. WIGEN, Former Warden, Moshannon Valley Correctional Center;

THE GEO GROUP, INC.; DONNA MELLENDICK, Former Administrator, Bureau of 

Prisons Privatization Management Branch; DAVID O'NEILL, Assistant Field Director, 

Department of Homeland Security

(W.D. Pa. No. 3-16-cv-00026)

Present: RESTREPO, McKEE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

Motion by Appellees Donna Mellendick and David O’Neill to Amend 

Opinion and Judgment.

Respectfully,

Clerk/DWB/arr

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion is GRANTED as reflected in the amended precedential opinion 

and amended judgment which are filed simultaneously with this Order.

By the Court,

s/D. Brooks Smith 

Circuit Judge

Dated: September 19, 2023

cc: Stephen A. Fogdall, Esq.

Thomas A. Specht, Esq.

 Adam N. Hallowell, Esq.

Laura S. Irwin, Esq.

Dino L. LaVerghetta, Esq.
@conference{1206096,
  author = {Susanne M. Furman and Julie Haney},
  title = {User Perceptions and Experiences with Smart Home Updates},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-05-22 04:05:00},
  publisher = {IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, San Francisco, CA, US},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935232},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mavenir Systems, Inc. (Mavenir) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2013, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pardeep Kohli, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Mavenir, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities Exchange Act
Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Mavenir.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: December 05, 2013



|   |  |                                     
|-- |  | ------------------------------------
|By |  | /s/ Pardeep Kohli                   
|   |  | Pardeep Kohli                       
|   |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed to be filed by Mavenir for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This certification is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Mavenir under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lenny Jones, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 757]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J., at hearing; Bruce Allen, J., at nonjury trial and sentence), rendered September 14, 2004, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
fie.

I/O TttL |

COUdl Of C(HA(VhL ftPPibLS COURT he nHMwai APPEALS

AKS7//1/, TX JUL 1/ "

ECE1VED M

(K15T/V7C OF ?**"*$

AbatAooslB.Cierfc

RECEIVED IN.

Hn/\APfiiAL Mb. i^-lH-oonx-c^ JUL 17 2015

-tati\L ctw^ no, li-til 13^

^^jotg^giT/o/^^gy '/?s<//&0 * JUL 22.2S:5

tj> -T/fC uom&miC -zuQCts of -7/+-L cou&7 op- c/wntA/AL Aflpc&& Acosta, Cierk

ca/vtc* /Uft/O, sohu ttjiATrKQJM^PttcriMke-, frwo net* -rms /ndf/cA/

Foft A(Sae£T/dA/A& (LUliu), J7/J 5ufifat7 or 7rttS /no-rto/J ftPfUoH/7' S~/M^i

X

c&lATM. IVtMer Tfr£ oFfCA/St OF /Afi&stSMafr fctALic jf&/AWT ia/ tz4*st

&<rUUa of fztAS. Tffi ctet krts fifweaicOov zraat shots'.

JUT*.

Tin mrtfr7~ C&CUAtt. OF F/LWC P0£ /* A«L.4C%a,lt>gr. Pz-rrr***

U-frt /J07 &L.QKtSTlA 4-vY £rrU)S(0(J fafOfl. <*6 T*fS £HG>ufST ,

JTT>

tntnuJ* um tier MFttotf of a«1 of t** vmiu/vs MyLuT ^ sU6:rtcr

AA/O CAtmVIrt CF 0\/llO7 fifPTAL. X VISHlOVl Cdt/SHLJZfi CP/l £0AS7<te7Ca ,*/*** mdiOA/ 6FT/K Cr&MAfte faA. ptfiPUL. -r#f#CF(KL juMc oP ^t £0/U70Ur or

Me* JT 063SC7SA TO A5 45 MOU/M M7*L AFPIAC tf 6W?S-7#a;,

FILED IN
# covid_table11_q4_state
# Result 3.2
#### Jihun Kim et al., Respondents, v S&M Caterers, Inc., Doing Business as Leonard’s, Defendant, and Sansoogapsan II, Inc., Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 903]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Sansoogapsan II, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), dated November 16, 2012, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate an order of the same court dated August 1, 2012, granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against it upon its failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order dated November 16, 2012, is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; *Yao Ping Tang v Grand Estate, LLC, 77*AD3d 822, 822-823 [2010]). “A decision to vacate a prior order or judgment rests in the sound discretion of the court and will be upheld in the absence of an improvident exercise of that discretion” *(Epps v LaSalle Bus,*271 AD2d 400, 400 [2000]; *see Kohn v Kohn,*86 AD3d 630 [2011]).

Here, the appellant did not offer a reasonable excuse for its failure to appear or answer the complaint *(see Maida v Lessing’s Rest. Servs., Inc.,*80 AD3d 732, 733 [2011]; *Gartner v Unified Windows, Doors & Siding, Inc.,*71 AD3d 631, 632 [2010]; *Fekete v Camp Skwere,*16 AD3d 544, 545 [2005]). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider whether the appellant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action *(see Maida v Lessing’s Rest. Servs., Inc.,*80 AD3d at 733; *Abdul v Hirschfield,*71 AD3d 707, 709 [2010]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Kyana Holloway, Appellant, v Station Bar Corp., Doing Business as Bartinis, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 288]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an or*785der of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated November 27, 2012, as granted that branch of her motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 only to the extent of precluding the defendant from offering any testimony at trial from two of its employees named “Juan” and “Jose.”

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As a sanction against a party who “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed,” a court may issue an order, inter alia, “prohibiting the disobedient party . . . from producing in evidence designated things or items of testimony” or “striking out pleadings” (CPLR 3126 [2], [3]). A court may invoke the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, however, only upon a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious *(see Facey v Silver Express Cab Corp.,*87 AD3d 1053 [2011]; *Patel v DeLeon,*43 AD3d 432, 433 [2007]; *Williams v Ryder TRS, Inc.,*29 AD3d 784, 785 [2006]). Here, the record does not support a finding that the defendant willfully and contumaciously failed to produce for depositions two of its former employees identified only as “Juan” and “Jose.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 only to the extent of precluding the defendant from calling “Juan” and “Jose” as witnesses at trial *(see Viteritti v Gelfand,*289 AD2d 566, 567 [2001]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - December 2003 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Benefit payments December 2003 December 2002 

Total $734,696,000 $726,332,000 

Retired employees 469,281,000 460,045,000 

Spouses and divorced spouses 88,276,000 87,915,000 

Widow(er)s - aged and disabled 155,822,000 157,214,000 

Other survivors 21,317,000 21,158,000 

Number Average1 Number Average1 

Total 624,300 ......... 2,200 ......... ......... 

Regular employee annuities, tota 292,100 $1,625 900 $2,289 ......... 

Age 209,300 1,587 2 300 2 2,672 3 $1,272 

Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 36,000 1,451 ......... ......... ......... 

Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 46,800 1,929 400 2,286 

Spouses and divorced spouses 146,100 610 600 744 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 157,500 997 500 1,330 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,100 1,297 4/ 668 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 15,000 663 100 692 

Children 12,500 762 4/ 958 

Other survivors 100 664 ......... ......... ......... .........

5/ / 

603 636 

873 757 

664 679 

......... 

862 947 

450 350 

......... 

$922 

......... 

Being Paid Awarded 

Monthly benefits December 2003 

Average under 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded in 

month 

Social Security 

5

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

Benefit payments 

December December 

2003 2002 Number Average 

$5,113,000 $5,558,000 128,600 $42 400 $41 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Number Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement.

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); about 200

other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis.

4

Fewer than 50.

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers.

Note.--Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

December 2003 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Unemployment 4,600 $272 

Sickness 7,300 273 

Unemployment 

Sickness 5,663,000 4,633,000 

$9,776,000 

4,376,000 5,143,000 

Total $10,039,000 

Benefit payments 

December 2003 December 2002 

$473 

491 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period 

Per 

full week 

Average payment 

Note.--Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Recycled 

Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary and the Office of Public Affairs
@article{1212186,
  author = {Laura Vierbaum and Nathalie Wojtalewicz and Peter Grunert and Anika Zimmerman and Annemarie Scholz and Sabine Goseberg and Patricia Kaiser and Ulf Duehring and Christian Drosten and Victor Max Corman and Daniela Niemeyer and Holger F. Rabenau and Martin Obermeier and Andreas Nitsche and Janine Michel and Jim Huggett and Denise O'Sullivan and Simon Cowen and Peter Vallone and Megan Cleveland and Samreen Falak and Andreas Kummrow and Ingo Schellenberg and Heinz Zeichhardt and Martin Kammel},
  title = {Results of German external quality assessment schemes for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-14 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Scientific Reports},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935339},
  language = {en},
}
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 819 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Authorization 

for Use of Military Force and the Authorization for Use of Military 

Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 do not provide legal justification 

for war with Iran. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2020 

Mr. CURTIS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the 

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 

Resolution of 2002 do not provide legal justification for 

war with Iran. 

Whereas, on May 12, 2019, four commercial ships were damaged in the Gulf of Oman, two of which were registered 

in Saudi Arabia, one in Norway, and one in the United 

Arab Emirates; 

Whereas, on June 13, 2019, two oil tankers were attacked in 

the Strait of Hormuz by Iran; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 819 IH 

Whereas, on June 20, 2019, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary 

Guard Corps shot down a United States RQ–4A Global 

Hawk BAMS–D surveillance drone; 

Whereas, on September 14, 2019, Iran attacked two major 

oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, leading to the largest price 

increase in oil in 30 years; 

Whereas throughout these escalations, President Trump 

acted with immense restraint; 

Whereas in the last two months of 2019, Iranian-backed militias attacked United States troops in Iraq, eventually resulting in the death of one United States contractor and 

injuring four soldiers; 

Whereas between December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2019, 

Iranian-backed groups stormed the United States Embassy in Iraq, leaving embassy officials fearing for their 

safety and forcing the United States to dispatch hundreds of troops to deescalate the situation; 

Whereas the Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor 

of terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the Middle East and throughout the world; 

Whereas Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was the lead architect of much of Iran’s destabilizing activities; 

Whereas, on January 2, 2019, President Trump authorized 

a precision strike that killed Qassem Soleimani; 

Whereas Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on United 

States diplomats and military personnel; and 

Whereas the United States has an inherent right to self-defense against imminent armed attacks and maintains the 

right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving 

abroad: Now, therefore, be it 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 819 IH 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the Authorization for Use of Military 

3 Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) and the 

4 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Res5 olution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 

6 note) do not provide legal justification for war with Iran. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
================================================================================

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 Aamaxan Transport Group, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the  period  ended July 31,  2006 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned,  in the capacity and on the
date indicated below,  hereby certifies  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: September 13, 2006                       /s/ Marc Juliar
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Marc Juliar
                                               Chief Executive Officer and
                                               Chief Financial Officer












--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### STERN et al. v. EXPOSITION GREYHOUND, Inc.

Civ. No. 987.

District Court, E. D. New York.

April 22, 1941.

Irving Ribman, of New York City, for plaintiffs.

Harold J. Drescher, of New York City, for defendant.

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

In this action for personal injuries, defendant seeks to vacate plaintiffs’ notice of examination. By the notice of examination, plaintiffs ask to take the deposition before trial of the defendant “by its chauffeur of its bus referred to in the complaint herein, and by such other of said defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees and representatives having knowledge thereof, as an adverse party * * * .” Objection is taken that the chauffeur no longer being in defendant’s employ, the description of the other persons sought to be examined is in too general terms to be effective.

This contention of defendant is hardly well taken, for the persons sought to be examined are sufficiently well identified as being those who have knowledge of the situation. To hold to the contrary would be to penalize plaintiffs for not having the information which the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, seek to afford to them.

Plaintiffs’ request to examine with respect to documents or statements obtained by the defendant from any witness will not be allowed. McCarthy v. Palmer, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 585; Creden v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 168. This limitation, however, does not prevent the plaintiffs from requesting the names and addresses of witnesses whom they may in turn desire to examine.

Motion denied. Settle order on notice.
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 Quarterly Report of Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Thomas A. Williams, 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:

(i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) the information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 13, 2007.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas A. Williams                              
|Thomas A. Williams                                  
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer