alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
^^ EI\ | ROf CAJM^HNV PS»*K*

_-£^ KVl ^SNX-^A JUL 27 2015

ToTL, Wo-^o^^V^^P °* ^^ ^°^J Abe, Acosta, Clerk

— f \\o«01'\V OOV^-^) i^^A^V v>^<Vb Oo*/\m\c^*^ O^t

t£<u&^ ****** *~ «fc^~ ^^ ^AA—

\ £> -a L^W^nOA ot ^nl. vj^-UVL v^rviVd.T,^
4^\V<A\gxv *uAV:b ^V^^x\WiAA t^«LXVSs©vx.,X\\'

£<A<b ovx wVs<^ ^O^nO^tA- ^<l\\« V» ^U^^XN^A^ \*^Wvc\

\W o^c A W ^o^A oft Lw^\^^^ Vo ^~

-^ivW- \\\s ^oXA^ SUA. ^scj^Av^vp^ ^aAix**^** ^V)

£°<^ £^\A*>\ vJ\^\ ^^ OjskJAP., ^O^^O^W^^AtAO V«U UVAl^ Vo W- *W^A^-

b^A *w*~ <^ oo^vA cc^ oft «^r^a^TM^

.1^
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40923

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANDRES SANCHEZ-MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-286

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Sanchez-Medina (Sanchez) appeals the 41-month, withinguidelines sentence imposed by the district court. He argues that the district 

court erred by imposing an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based upon the California felony complaint and abstract of 

judgment evidencing his prior conviction under California Health and Safety 

Code § 11378.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 20, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-40923 Document: 00513121907 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2015
No. 13-40923

2

This court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing 

Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States 

v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 2015). Because Sanchez’s

conviction under § 11378 is not categorically a “drug trafficking offense” for 

purposes of § 2L1.2, we must employ the modified categorical approach to 

determine whether his prior conviction warranted the enhancement. See id. at 

793-94 (adopting the reasoning of United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 

679, 687 (9th Cir. 2012)). 

The district court was entitled to rely upon the charging document for 

the § 11378 offense to determine whether it constituted a drug trafficking 

offense. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005). Sanchez does 

not deny that the felony complaint, which charged him with possessing 

methamphetamine for sale, is the final charging document; because nothing in 

the record affirmatively casts doubt upon, or creates ambiguity regarding, 

whether the felony complaint constitutes the charging document, the district 

court did not clearly err in finding that it did. See Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d at 

795-96.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 13-40923 Document: 00513121907 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/20/2015
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10637 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Nicholas Andrew Waldman,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 38

- 1

Before **Higginbotham, Higginson,** and **Duncan,** Circuit J udges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Nicholas Andrew Waldman appeals his guilty

- plea conviction for receipt of a firearm while under indictment for a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n) and 924(a)(1)(D). He argues that § 922(n) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to him bec ause it does not require a

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 21, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10637 Document: 00516139180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2021No. 21

- 10637

2 sufficient nexus with interstate commerce or, in the alternative, because a sufficient nexus was not alleged or admitted here. Waldman further contends that these arguments are not subject to the appeal waiver in his plea

agreem ent. We do not address the waiver provision in Waldman’s plea agreement because the Government chose not to assert its applicability, instead moving for summary affirmance. The motion is unopposed : Waldman concedes that
the constitutional issue he raises is foreclosed by precedent rejecting similar arguments with respect to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which includes a jurisdictional nexus requirement like that in § 922(n). See, e.g. , United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143, 145

- 46 (5th Cir. 2013)

. Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper

. Accordi ngly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
**GRANTED** , the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time
to file a brief is **DENIED** as unnecessary , and the district court’s judgment
is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-10637 Document: 00516139180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2021
Exhibit 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
            (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                         Title 18, United States Code)


Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  section  1350,  chapter  63 of  title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned  officer  of  Sharper  Image  Corporation,  a  Delaware  corporation
("Sharper Image"), does hereby certify that:

     a)  The Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended  January 31,
         2004 (the  "Form  10-K")  of  Sharper  Image  fully  complies  with the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

     b)  The  information  contained  in the Form 10-K fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of
         Sharper Image.


By: /s/  Richard Thalheimer
   -------------------------
Richard Thalheimer
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
April 15, 2004
O rder filed May 9 , 2013



### In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 1 3

- 00 054

- CR

__________

MARK JOSEPH SHUMSKI , Appellant

V.

THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 271st District Court

Wise County, Texas

Tri al Court Cause No. CR 16247

O R D E R

T h is appeal has be come stalled due to the failure of Jeff ery Goodwyn, the

court reporter for the 271st District Court, to prepare and file in this court the

reporter’s record . The reporter’s record was originally due on February 11

, 201 3

.

On March 13 , 2013

, Goodwyn filed a request for an extension of time in which to

file the reporter’s record. On April 2, 2013, this court granted the request in part2 and extend ed the deadli ne to April 12, 2013

. We have had no further

communication from Mr. Goodwyn.

By this order, Jeffery Goodwyn i s ORDERED to file the reporter’s record in

this cause on or before May 24

, 201 3

.

It is further ordered by this court that the clerk of this court furnish a copy of

this order to the trial court from which this appeal has been taken.

PER CURIAM

May 9 , 2013

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J.
Exhibit 21



Concerto Software, Inc.

List of Subsidiaries



|Name of Subsidiary                             |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|---------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Concerto Software (Asia Pacific) Pte. Ltd.     |  | Singapore                    
|Concerto Software GmbH                         |  | Germany                      
|Concerto Software (Canada) Inc.                |  | Nova Scotia                  
|Concerto Software (UK) Limited                 |  | England                      
|Davox Sales Corporation                        |  | Barbados                     
|Davox Belgium S.P.R.L.                         |  | Belgium                      
|Davox International Holdings, Inc.             |  | Massachusetts                
|Concerto Software Mexico, S. de R.L. de
C.V.   |  | Mexico                       
|Davox Securities Corporation                   |  | Massachusetts                
|Davox do Brazil Ltda.                          |  | Sao Paulo                    
|Concerto Software (Australia) Pty Limited      |  | New South Wales              
|Davox Corporation Hong Kong Limited            |  | Hong Kong                    
|Concerto Software (Japan) Corporation
(Branch) |  | Tokyo                        
|Concerto Software (Japan) Corporation          |  | Delaware                     
|Concerto Software BV                           |  | Amsterdam                    
|Concerto Software India Private Limited        |  | New Delhi                    
|CellIt, Inc.                                   |  | Florida                      
|Concerto Software Korea Limited                |  | Korea                        



1
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 26, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1824

Lower Tribunal No. 18-22362

________________

José Yeyille,

Appellant,

vs.

Armandina Acosta-Leon, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio 

Arzola, Judge.

José Yeyille, in proper person.

Walter J. Harvey, Miami-Dade County School Board Attorney, and Luis 

M. Garcia, Deputy School Board Attorney, for appellees.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

Affirmed.
Case 2:11-cr-00021-DMC Document 13 Filed 02/17/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 25
Case 2:11-cr-00021-DMC Document 13 Filed 02/17/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 26
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 accompanying report on Form 10–Q for the period ended
March 31, 2009 of EV Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) and filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
John B. Walker, Chief Executive Officer of EV Management, LLC, the general
partner of EV Energy GP, L.P., the general partner of the Partnership, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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
      combined predecessors of the
Partnership.




Date:
      June 10, 2009
            /s/
      JOHN B. WALKERJohn
      B. WalkerChief
      Executive Officer of EV Management LLC,general
      partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,general
      partner of EV Energy Partners,
L.P.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2008 (the “Report”) of Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation (the “Registrant”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Richard Lindermanis, as the Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1) the
Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operations of
the Registrant.






August
      13, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Richard
      LindermanisRichard
      LindermanisChief
      Financial Officer






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT Section 1350 Certification as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    The undersigned officer of Globalink, LTD. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.     Date: August 20, 2012  By: /s/ Robin Young  Robin Young Chief Executive Officer   Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT Section 1350 Certification as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    The undersigned officer of Globalink, LTD. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.     Date: August 20, 2012  By: /s/Ben Choi  Ben Choi Chief Financial Officer
@article{1206756,
  author = {Zhihui Cheng and Curt A. Richter and Hattan Abuzaid and Jonathan Backman and Mathieu Luisier and Huairuo Zhang and Albert Davydov and Guoqing Li and Yifei Yu and Linyou Cao and Aaron Franklin},
  title = {Distinct Contact Scaling Effects in MoS2 Transistors Revealed with Asymmetrical Contact Measurements},
  year = {2023},
  number = {35},
  month = {2023-02-27 05:02:00},
  publisher = {Advanced Materials},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934760},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202210916},
  language = {en},
}
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36999

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

DANIEL ALBERT GARZA

,

Defendant-Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2010 Unpublished Op inion No. 525

Filed: June 24, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Sta te of Idaho, Twin

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard B e v an , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Sa rah E. Tompkins, Deputy

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney

General, Boise, for respondent.

_________________ _____________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Daniel Albert Garza pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance . I.C. § 37

-

2732(c)(1) . The district court sentenced Garza to a unified term of six years, with a minimum

period of confinement of three years . The district court, however, retained jurisdiction and

allowed Garza to participate in the rider program. Thereafter, the district court rel inquished

jurisdiction. Garza filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Garza appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of2

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including the new information submitted with Garza ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court ’s order denying Garza ’s Rule

35 motion is affirmed.
***Exhibit 31.2******CERTIFICATIONS***     I, Jason West, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Mid-America Bancshares, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.August 7, 2007   /s/ Jason West   Jason West  Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Michael P. McDermott, Petitioner, v Town Board of Town of Patterson et al., Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 891]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent Town Board of the Town of Patterson dated December 14, 2005, which, upon remittal from this Court by decision and judgment dated March 23, 2005, imposed a penalty of one year suspension followed by 18 months’ probation.

*704Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction *(see*CPLR 7804 [b]; 506 [b]) to entertain this proceeding. Miller, J.E, Krausman, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Case 3:11-cv-00247-FLW-LHG Document 306 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 4978
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32615-32616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16110]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, July 20, 2009, 8 a.m. to July 
21, 2009, 6 p.m., Beacon Hotel and Corporate Quarters, 1615 Rhode 
Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036, which was published in the 
Federal Register on June 26, 2009, 74 FR 30597-30598.

[[Page 32616]]

    The meeting will be held at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The meeting dates and time remain 
the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-16110 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Criminal No.: lO-CR-851 (CCC)-l I

Plaintiff,

ORDER EXTENDING

VS. DEFENDANTS

SALVATORE LAGRASSO, SURRENDER DATE

Defendant.

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon defendant’s request, through his

attorney. Peter Till. Esq.. for an order extending defendant’s surrender date, and for good cause

shown,

IT IS on this 2O day ofJanuary, 2015,

ORDERED that defendant Salvatore Lagrasso’s surrender date is hereby extended from

January 22, 2015 until February 12, 2015.

CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J,
EXHIBIT 10.28




May __, 1997




Mr. Arthur T. Shorin
400 East 56th Street
New York, New York  10022

Dear Mr. Shorin:

The Topps Company, Inc. (the "Company") hereby agrees with you to the following
amendment (the "Amendment") to your Employment Agreement with the Company,
dated as of October 28, 1991, as amended on May 18, 1994, May 19, 1995 and 
May 22, 1996 (the "Agreement").

This will confirm your consent (i) to the limited waiver of the 10% increase in
the annual base salary to be paid to you pursuant to section 5(a) of the
Agreement for your services rendered during the Company's fiscal year ending
February 28, 1998 only, and (ii) to a target annual bonus opportunity of 20% of
annual base salary for the Company's fiscal year ending February 28, 1998 only.

The amendments set forth herein shall be limited  precisely as written and 
shall not be deemed to be a modification or waiver of any right or remedy which 
the parties hereto may not have or may have in the future under or in 
connection with the Agreement, including, without limitation, the right to have 
all termination payments required to be made under Section 7 of the Agreement
calculated to include all salary increases required to have been provided under
the terms of the Agreement, without regard to the limited waivers of such
increases made by the amendments to the Agreement dated May 18, 1994, May 19,
1995 and May 22, 1996.  Except as provided herein, the Agreement shall remain 
unchanged and in full force and effect.  This Amendment may be executed in
counterparts, which taken together shall constitute one and the same amendatory
instrument.



<PAGE>
Mr. Arthur T. Shorin

May- ,1997
Page 2



This Amendment shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance
with the laws of the State of New York.

Very truly yours,

TOPPS COMPANY, INC.



By:________________________                 ______________________
         Catherine Jessup                   Arthur T. Shorin
         Vice President-Chief
           Financial Officer