alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10445

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANNA ROCHELLE WOODS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-30-22

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anna Rochelle Woods pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture and substance 

containing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846. She 

was sentenced to the statutory minimum of five years of imprisonment, and 

she timely appealed.

* 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

January 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10445 Document: 00512916720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2015
No. 14-10445

In her sole issue on appeal, Woods argues that mandatory minimum 

sentences violate an individual’s right to due process of law because they take 

away a sentencing judge’s discretion to sentence each convicted defendant as 

an individual. She contends that mandatory minimum sentences place the 

power to try a defendant in the hands of Congress and the power to sentence a 

defendant in the hands of the prosecutor.

The United States Supreme Court and this court have rejected the 

argument that mandatory minimum sentences violate the Fifth Amendment.

See Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 467 (1991) (“Congress has the 

power to define criminal punishments without giving the courts any 

sentencing discretion.”); United States v. Rojas-Martinez, 968 F.2d 415, 420 

(5th Cir. 1992) (“Imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for offenses 

involving large quantities of illegal drugs bears a rational relationship to the 

legitimate purpose of enforcing federal drug laws and is not arbitrary.”). 

Accordingly, the application of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence in 

§ 841(b)(1)(B)(i) does not violate Woods’s Fifth Amendment right to substantive 

due process.

Although we conclude that the judgment should be affirmed without 

further briefing, summary affirmance is not appropriate. See United States v. 

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, 

we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny the Government’s motion 

for summary affirmance and its alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

2

 Case: 14-10445 Document: 00512916720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2015
Exhibit 31.01


                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Gary D. Halbert, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of ProFutures Diversified Fund,
L.P.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
      including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
      within 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 and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
      the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
      reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting.



Date:  April 26, 2007



/s/ Gary D. Halbert

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

Gary D. Halbert, President
ProFutures, Inc., General Partner
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 24, 2014

No. 04-14-00440-CV

D&J ALEXANDER MANAGEMENT, LP,

Appellant

v.

Raymond S. DE LEON II, Trustee of the Delfina & Josefina Alexander Family Trust,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PBA-00133L2

Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Appellants, Judith Zaffirini, David H. Arredondo, and Clarissa N. Chapa, filed an 

“Emergency Motion for Temporary Orders to Preserve Jurisdiction and Rights Pending Appeal 

(Garcia, Tamez, and Tellez Ad Litem Order).” The motion is DENIED.

Appellant, D&J Alexander Management, LP, also filed an “Emergency Motion for 

Temporary Orders to Preserve Jurisdiction and Rights Pending Appeal (Garcia, Tamez, and 

Tellez Ad Litem Order).” The motion is ORDERED HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further 

order of this court.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GARY MANGINI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PENSKE LOGISTICS,

 Defendant.

Civil No. 11-270 (NLH/KMW)

JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER having been tried to a jury and the jury having 

returned a verdict in favor of Defendant, Penske Logistics LLC, 

and against Plaintiff, Gary Mangini, on May 6, 2014, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUGED that judgment is entered 

this 13th day of May, 2014, in favor of Defendant, and 

against Plaintiff.

s/ Noel L. Hillman 

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

Case 1:11-cv-00270-NLH-KMW Document 57 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 982
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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 Annual Report of Wellman, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas M. Duff, Chief Executive 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.







|By/s/Thomas M. Duff__
Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Williams, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, J., at plea; John Moore, J., at sentence), rendered on or about October 25, 2011, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                             STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.

                    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

 In connection with the annual report of Stratex Networks, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Carl A. Thomsen, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best
of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
              indicated.

Date: May 19, 2003                                       /s/ Carl A. Thomsen
                                                             Carl A. Thomsen
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
        23.1**
 
 ACCOUNTANTS’
        CONSENT
 
 Criticare
        Systems, Inc.
 Waukesha,
        Wisconsin
 
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on Form
        S-8 (File Nos. 33-33497, 33-40038, 33-60214, 33-60644, 333-30138, 333-88698
        and
        333-112565) and Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-50884 and 333-88696) of our report
        dated
        August 12, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedules
        of Criticare Systems, Inc. appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
        for the year ended June 30, 2005.
   
 /s/
        BDO
        Seidman, LLP
 Milwaukee,
        Wisconsin
 September
        9, 2005
EXHIBIT 28(a)

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS TO THE MEMBERS OF WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have audited the accompanying non-statutory consolidated balance sheets of
Wellman International Limited and subsidiaries at 31 December 1998 and 1997,
and the related consolidated profit and loss accounts for each of the three
years in the period ended 31 December 1998, all expressed in Irish pounds
(not presented separately herewith).  These financial statements are the
responsibility of the company's directors.  Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in Ireland which do not differ significantly from generally accepted
auditing standards in the United States of America.  Those standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing
the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,
as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We
believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the non-statutory financial statements referred to above,
expressed in Irish pounds, present fairly, in all material respects, the
consolidated financial position of Wellman International Limited and
subsidiaries at 31 December 1998 and 1997, and the consolidated results of
operations for each of the three years in the period ended 31 December 1998
in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.


KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditors



Dublin, Ireland

28 January 1999
***Exhibit 31.1******CERTIFICATIONS***     I, Gary L. Scott, 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/ Gary L. Scott   Gary L. Scott  Chairman and CEO
<Page>

                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      This Employment Agreement is made by and between South Dakota Soybean
Processors ("SDSP") and Rodney G. Christianson ("Employee"):

      1.    TITLE. Chief Executive Officer

      2.    REPORTING TO. SDSP's Board of Directors.

      3.    SALARY. Commencing April 1, 1999, the sum of $13,333.33 per
month, and a like amount each month thereafter through August 1, 2000.
Commencing September 1, 2000, the sum of $15,000.00 per month, and a like
amount each month thereafter through August 1, 2000. Commencing September 1,
2001, the sum of $16,666.66, and a like amount each month thereafter through
August 1, 2002.

      4.    INCENTIVE BONUS. During fiscal year, Employee will earn one-half
(1/2) of one percent (1%) of the net profit before taxes and value added
payments up to $5,000,000.00. Should the net profit be over $5,000,000.00,
the earnings will be at the rate of one percent (1%) of the net profits.
Example: $4,386,000.00 net profit x .5% = $21,930.00 or $6,500,000.00 net
profit x 1% = $65,000.00. This incentive bonus may be paid directly or
deferred at Employee's option.

      5.    PERFORMANCE REVIEW. Performance reviews will be conducted every six
(6) months.

      6.    BENEFITS. Those benefits offered all SDSP employees.

      7.    PENSION/RETIREMENT. Pension or Retirement Plans, if any, in
accordance with those provided for all SDSP employees.

      8.    HOLIDAYS. New Year's Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July,
Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.

<Page>

      9.    VACATION. Employee will receive twenty (20) days' vacation per
fiscal year.

      10.   EXPENSES. Business related expenses will be reimbursed to Employee
upon presentation of receipts as required by IRS guidelines.

      11.   VEHICLE. A vehicle will be provided to Employee for company
business. The type and cost of the vehicle will be subject to SDSP's Board of
Directors' approval.

      12.   TERMINATION. Employment is at the will of SDSP's Board of Directors
and may be terminated at any time for any reason. Employee shall give SDSP no
less than sixty (60) days' prior notice of termination.

      Dated this 1 day of April, 1999

                                    SOUTH DAKOTA SOYBEAN PROCESSORS

                                    By  /s/ Paul W. Casper
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Paul W. Casper
                                       Its President

Dated this 1 day of April, 1999.

                                    /s/ Rodney G. Christianson
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    Rodney G. Christianson
Case 1:10-cv-06229-JBS -KMW Document 2 Filed 12/21/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 16
Case 1:10-cv-06229-JBS -KMW Document 2 Filed 12/21/10 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 17
Case 1:10-cv-06229-JBS -KMW Document 2 Filed 12/21/10 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 18
Case 1:10-cv-06229-JBS -KMW Document 2 Filed 12/21/10 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 19
Case 1:10-cv-06229-JBS -KMW Document 2 Filed 12/21/10 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 20
Case 1:10-cv-06229-JBS -KMW Document 2 Filed 12/21/10 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 21
Case 1:10-cv-06229-JBS -KMW Document 2 Filed 12/21/10 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 22
Case 1:10-cv-06229-JBS -KMW Document 2 Filed 12/21/10 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 23
Case 1:10-cv-06229-JBS -KMW Document 2 Filed 12/21/10 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 24
#### Bissell *against*Dennison.

*February,*18*th*

*A responded*toay set down'a forbear. mg, *ex parte, aud*“ftheo? pellant; and jf tbe appellant th”d1^ or £ ¡5?oceeddto *tu*peai maybe ais' missed.

THIS cause having been set down for a hearing, on the part . , i r rr • I , °. r of the respondent, *1.*Hamilton, now moved to brmg it 1 ° to a bearing. The appellant had not aet down the, -cause for hearing.

*Van*Vechten, for the appellant,

objected that the respondent had not given notice to the appellant, of his having set down the cause fora hearing, nor of his intention to bring it on, and that the appellant was not ready.

Hamilton, in reply,

said, that the cause was set down for hearing, on the part of the respondent, at the last session of the court, when the appellant applied for, and obtained, an order for the cause to go off, on an affidavit that the appellant had not been able to obtain the necessary transcripts for the court below. He stated, that there was no rule of the court requiring the respondent to give notice to the appellant, of having set the cause down for hearing, nor did he understand such to be the practice.

*488Thompson, Ch. J.

As the appellant is not ready to proceed, and no person appears to oppose the decree of the court below, I think the court ought to dismiss the appeal. The respondent is entitled to bring on the hearing *ex parte;*but as the court never hear an argument *ex parte,*the respondent must be entitled to his decree in the court below.

After some discussion, as to the regularity of this proceeding/Üie *court*were of opinion that it was, correct.

*Per Curiam.*Ordered, that the appeal be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 1220
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 1221
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 1222
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 1223
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 1224
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 1225
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 1226
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 1227
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 1228
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 1229
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 1230
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 1231
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 70 Filed 05/11/12 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 1232
#### Tuttle *et al.*v. Baker. Same v. Easterly. Same v. Lingerfelter. Same v. Martin. Same v. Phillips. Same v. Stady. Same v. Starks. Same v. Wright.

*(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.*

January 11, 1888.)

*Charles II. Buell,*for complainants.

*Baniel B. Benton,*for defendant.

Coxe, J.

Counsel having stipulated that these causes should abide the event of the action against Sylvester .Garver, and the court having directed a decree for the complainants in that cause, it follows that a similar decree should be entered in each of the above-entitled actions.
@misc{1206306,
  author = {Patrick D. O'Reilly and Kristina Rigopoulos and Larry Feldman and Greg Witte},
  title = {2022 Cybersecurity & Privacy Annual Report},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-05-30 04:05:00},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936685},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-225},
  language = {en},
}
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: In the Matter of the Marriage of Allan Ray Comstock and Mindy Lee

Comstock

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 722

- C V

Trial court case number: 15

- FD

- 3019

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Galveston County

Date motion filed: October 29 , 20 2 1

Party filing motion: Appell ant

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s / April L. Farris

Acting Individually Acting for the Court

A majority of the justices of the Court voted to deny the motion for en banc reconsideration.

The En Banc Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau,

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, Guerra, and Farris

.

Justice Goodman, voting to grant en banc reconsideration.

Date: December 9 , 20 2 1