alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SPRAGUE & HENWOOD, Plaintiff, v. Roland JOHNSON, t/a Triple J Contractors, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 84-0362-A.

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Abingdon Division.

April 26, 1985.

*1565Matthew J. Cody, Jr., Lebanon, Va., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GLEN M. WILLIAMS, District Judge.

This diversity action to enforce a debt is before the court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The debt in question was an open account which the defendant owed the plaintiff. Various amounts were charged to the account between June 24,1981 and September 25, 1981. The amount of the debt, $15,436.15, is not contested. The defendant debtor has raised as an affirmative defense the statute of limitations for an express or implied unwritten contract. Va. Code § 8.01-246, subd. 4. The three year statutory period would bar this action, which was filed on October 1, 1984.

The plaintiff urges that the various sales of goods to the defendant were made pursuant to a contract so that the Uniform Commercial Code — Sales (Article 2) applies. Va.Code Title 8.2. If so, the relevant statutory period is four years and would not bar this action. Va.Code § 8.2-725. Article 2 requires that a contract be evidenced by a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. Va.Code § 8.2-201. However, no writing is required where the goods have been received and accepted by the buyer. *Id.*at (3)(c).

A party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The plaintiff has produced a letter written on defendant’s stationery, dated September 28, 1981 and signed by Shirley A. Johnson. The letter promises payments to the account “as soon as possible.” The plaintiff’s Exhibit A, attached to the complaint, shows that the defendant made a partial payment of $1,500.00 in September, 1984. The letter and this partial payment, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, indicate that the goods in question were received and accepted by the defendant. For this reason, the court need not address the sufficiency of the letter to satisfy the formal requirements of Article 2. *Id.*at (1).

The defendant contends that it is not a merchant within the meaning of Va. Code § 8.2-104(1), and, therefore, Article 2 does not apply. Article 2 applies to the sale of goods to a buyer. A buyer is a person who buys or contracts to buy goods; a buyer may or may not be a merchant. Va.Code § 8.2-103.

*1566The plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to show that Article 2 applies to its sale of goods to the defendant. Ya. Code § 8.01-246 expressly provides that where § 8.2-725 is applicable, that section shall be controlling. For this reason, the plaintiffs action is not barred by the statute of limitations. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SEAN VICTOR STERLING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:06-cr-00179-RDB-7)

Submitted: November 3, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

M. Gordon Tayback, LAW OFFICES OF M. GORDON TAYBACK, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Tonya Kelly Kowitz, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean Sterling appeals his convictions of two counts of 

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking 

crime resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) 

(2006). On appeal, Sterling contends that the evidence is 

insufficient to demonstrate that he possessed the weapons in 

furtherance of a heroin conspiracy. We affirm.

“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the 

evidence faces a heavy burden.” United States v. Foster, 507 

F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007). We review a sufficiency of the 

evidence challenge by determining whether, viewing the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the Government, any rational 

trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 

515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005); see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 

60, 80 (1942). We review both direct and circumstantial 

evidence, and accord the Government all reasonable inferences 

from the facts shown to those sought to be established. United 

States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). “[I]f the 

evidence supports different, reasonable interpretations, the 

jury decides which interpretation to believe[.]” United 

States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). We will 

uphold the jury’s verdict if substantial evidence supports it, 
3

and will reverse only in those rare cases of clear failure by 

the prosecution. Foster

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the 

evidence was sufficient to support Sterling’s convictions. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before the 

court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

, 507 F.3d at 244-45.

AFFIRMED
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jo hnny Bryan Hernandez

, * From the 244th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. C

- 20

- 0425

- CR

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 2 90

- CR * October 3 , 20 2 4

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Williams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment s below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment s of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
|                                                  |                                        |                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|  Dated:              March              31, 2006 |                                        |
|                                             |                                   |                                |
|                                                  |                                   | /s/ Laurence              Moskowitz |
|                                                  | Name:              Laurence Moskowitz       |
|                                                  | Title:              Chief Executive Officer |

|         |                                            |                                       |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|         |                                            |
|    |                                       |                                  |
|         |                                       | /s/ Kenneth                  Torosian |
|         | Name:                  Kenneth Torosian         |
|         | Title:                  Chief Financial Officer |

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ROBERT VINCENT SALCEDO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 50191
D.C. No. 2:15

- cr - 00260

- AB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andr é Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2018 **
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Robert Vincent Salcedo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 110

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm but remand for the district

* 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

DEC 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50191

court to amend the judgment

. Salcedo argues that his prior conviction for carjacking under California Penal Code § 215 is not a crime of violence and, therefore, the district court erred in appl ying a base offense level of 22 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3). This argument is foreclosed for Salcedo, who was sentenced prior to the August 1, 2016 amendment to the Guidelines’ definition of generic extortion

. See United States v. Velasquez

- Bosque , 601 F.3d 955, 9 59 (9th Cir. 2010 ) (§ 215 is a categorical crime of violence because it criminalizes the same or less conduct as the combination of generic robbery and generic extortion ) ; see also United States v. Bankston , 901 F.3d 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2018) ( Amendment 798 to the Guidelines, which narrowed the definition of generic extortion , does not apply retroactively)

. Salcedo’s argument that Descamps v. United States , 570 U.S. 254 (2013), is clearly irreconcilable with Velasquez

- Bosque or with the case o n which it relies, United States v. Becerril

- Lopez , 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2008), is also foreclosed. See United States v. Chavez

- Cuevas , 862 F.3d 729, 740 (9th Cir. 2017) ( “ Descamps did not impliedly abrogate Becerril

- Lopez ”) , cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 1179 (2018)

. Nor does Solorio

- Ruiz v. Sessions , 881 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2018), compel a different result because the statute at issue there, 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) , does not contain an enumerated offense clause. See United States v. Flores

- Mejia , 687 F.3d 1213

- 1215

- 16 (9th Cir. 2012).3 16

- 50191

Salcedo next contends, and the government concedes , that the case should be remanded to conform the written judgment to the oral p ronouncement of sentence. We agree. We remand to the district court to amend the judgment to conform to
t he court’ s oral pronouncement that the sentence in this case is to run concurrently to Salcedo’s state sentence. See United States v. Hernandez , 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015). AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
Exhibit 32



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Sole Executive
Officer of the Company, certifies, that to his knowledge:

         1) Ridgefield Acquisition Corp.'s Form 10-KSB for the annual period
         ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2) the information contained in Ridgefield Acquisition Corp.'s Form
         10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents,
         in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.


Dated:  March 29, 2010


                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
Case 1:11-cv-00102-RBK-AMD Document 12 Filed 04/14/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 49
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned officer of Wellman, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies
that the Company's annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is
provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a
part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.

Date: November 21, 2006


                                        /s/ Keith R. Phillips
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Chief Financial Officer
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1193 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 

extend the period during which certain reclamation fees are required 

to be paid. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. WARNER, Mr. KAINE, Ms. 

DUCKWORTH, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

of 1977 to extend the period during which certain reclamation fees are required to be paid. 

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 ‘‘Abandoned Mine Land 

5 Reclamation Fee Extension Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION FEE. 

7 Section 402(b) of the Surface Mining Control and 

8 Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(b)) is amended 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1193 IS

1 by striking ‘‘September 30, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘Sep2 tember 30, 2036’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
CONSENT OF BDO SEIDMAN, LLP



Spectrum Information Technologies, Inc.
Purchase, New York


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference and inclusion
in the Prospectus constituting a part of the Registration
Statements listed on the accompanying index of our report dated
June 11, 1998, relating to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Spectrum Information Technologies, Inc. and
subsidiaries appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended March 31, 1998.




/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
BDO Seidman, LLP

June 11, 1998


<PAGE>





                       Index of Registration Statements



              Form                        Date
              ----                        ----
              S-8                         March 31, 1997
              S-8                         March 31, 1997
              S-8                         December 1, 1993
              S-3                         February 19,1993
              S-3                         November 3, 1992
              S-3                         October 15, 1992
              S-3                         August 31, 1992
              S-3                         July 9, 1992
              S-3                         May 28, 1992
              S-3                         May 28, 1992
              S-8                         January 23, 1992
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16058]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6636]


Notice of Closed Meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory 
Committee

    In accordance with the provisions of the Convention on Cultural 
Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) (the Act) there 
will be a meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee on 
(Committee) Monday, July 27 and on Tuesday, July 28 at the U.S. 
Department of State. Pursuant to section 2605(h) of the Act and 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), the meeting shall be closed to the public.
    At this meeting, the Committee will carry out its interim review 
function with respect to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the 
Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 
Republic of Colombia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions 
on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Columbian Cultures and Certain 
Ecclesiastical Material from the Colonial Period of Colombia concluded 
on March 15, 2006; and, the Memorandum of Understanding Between the 
Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 
Republic of Italy Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on 
Archaeological Material Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical and 
Imperial Roman Periods of Italy, concluded on January 19, 2001, and 
extended in 2006. Pursuant to the Act, the Committee will conduct an 
interim review of the effectiveness of the MOUs and will focus its 
attention on Article II of each MOU. This is not a meeting to consider 
extension of the MOUs. Such a meeting will be scheduled and announced 
in the future and will include a public session.
    The Committee's responsibilities are carried out in accordance with 
provisions of the Act. Related information may be found at http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop.

    Dated: June 19, 2009.
C. Miller Crouch,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-16058 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Exhibit
32.01





CERTIFICATIONS
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, Paul
S. Lipschutz, 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 WaterPure International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
WaterPure International, Inc.




By:
            
            /s/    PAUL
      S. LIPSCHUTZDate:
      May 19, 2009
            
            Name:
            
            Paul
      S. LipschutzTitle:
            
            Chief Executive Officer




I, Robert
F. Orr, 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
WaterPure International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March
31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of WaterPure International,
Inc.




By:
            
            /s/    ROBERT
      F. ORRDate:
      May 19, 2009
            
            Name:
            
            Robert
      F. OrrTitle:
            
            Chief
      Financial Officer
| Name                                    |   | Ownership |   |   | State ofIncorporation |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------|--------|--------|-----------------------|
| Enteron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.           |   |      | 100.00 | %      |                  | Delaware |
| Orasomal Technologies Inc.              |   |      | 75.30  | %      |                  | Delaware |
| BioDefense Corp.                        |   |      | 100.00 | %      |                  | Delaware |
| Soligenix BioPharma Canada Incorporated |   |      | 100.00 | %      |                  | Canada |
| Soligenix UK Limited                    |   |      | 100.00 | %      |                  | United Kingdom |
904 A.2d 720

#### IN THE MATTER OF JAFFA F. STEIN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

August 31, 2006.

ORDER

JAFFA F. STEIN of VOORHEES, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, and who thereafter was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of this Court filed January 4, 2006, and who remains suspended at this time, having tendered her consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JAFFA F. STEIN is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

*246ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that she be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.