alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephanie JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-11670

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 5, 2012.

Jonathan Colan, Amit Agarwal, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Carol Herman, Kathleen Mary Salyer, Anne Ruth Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

*954Michael Caruso, Tracy Michele Dreispul, Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stephanie Johnson appeals her sentence of 120 months of imprisonment, which was imposed after the district court reduced for the second time Johnson’s original sentence of 168 months of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2). On Johnson’s motion, the district court sentenced her to the statutory minimum sentence in effect when she was first sentenced, but Johnson requested a greater reduction based on the lower minimum sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. We affirm.

Johnson’s argument for a further reduction of her sentence is foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Berry,*701 F.3d 374 (11th Cir.2012), that a defendant sentenced before the effective date of the Act is ineligible to have her sentence reduced. We held that the Act “is not a guidelines amendment by the Sentencing Commission, but rather a statutory change by Congress, and ... does not serve as a basis for a ... sentence reduction” under section 3582(c)(2). *Id.,*701 F.3d at 377. Even if the Act could serve as a basis to reduce a sentence, we held in *Berry*that the lower mandatory minimum sentences did not apply retroactively to offenders sentenced before the effective date of the Act. *Id.*at 377. As explained by the Supreme Court in *Dorsey v. United States,*567 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2321, 183 L.Ed.2d 250 (2012), “application of the new minimums to pre-Act offenders sentenced after August 3 create[d] a new set of disparities,” that was an inevitable consequence of any “new law changing sentences” and was consistent with “the ordinary practice ... to apply new penalties to defendants not yet sentenced, while withholding that change from defendants already sentenced.” *Id.*at 2335. The district court did not err in denying Johnson’s motion to reduce her sentence below the statutory minimum in effect at her original sentencing.

We AFFIRM the denial of Johnson’s motion to reduce her sentence below the statutory minimum in effect at her original sentencing.

AFFIRMED.
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 25, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael G. Archbold, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 2, 2010



/s/ Michael G. ArchboldMichael G. ArchboldChief Financial and Chief Operating Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report.
CERTIFICATION 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 Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 (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.

                                 /s/Robin Young
                                 ----------------------
                                 Robin Young
                                 Chief Executive Officer

May 13, 2008

CERTIFICATION 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 Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 (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.

                                 /s/Ben Choi
                                 ----------------------
                                 Ben Choi
                                 Chief Executive Officer

May 13, 2008
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 RathGibson, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry C. Nuss, 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 my knowledge:  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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date:  December 14, 2006/s/ Barry C. NussBarry C. NussChief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; GO Grants.                    

*Date:*                         August 4-5, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                              ( print page 32947)    

*Place:*                         Bethesda North Marriott and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Marita R. Hopmann, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Building, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6911,                         *hopmannm@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 2, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-16204 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**Certification
      of Periodic Financial Report**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**




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 officers of Criticare
      Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
      the Company for the year ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
      information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:  
                September 28, 2007
            /s/
              Emil H. SoikaEmil
                H. Soika, Chief Executive Officer





Date:  
                September 28, 2007
            /s/
              Joel D. KnudsonJoel
                D. Knudson, Vice President -
                Finance





This
      Certification is made solely for
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained
      therein, and not for any other purpose.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RYAN LEE DUBOISE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 171 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
CH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0517

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SHANE CLARK JOHNSON, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including November 14, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve the 

State’s response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 2 2023

10/02/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0517
Case 1:11-cr-00071-JBS Document 7 Filed 02/07/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 28
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Douglas Emmett, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ WILLIAM KAMER
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | William Kamer          
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | Douglas Emmett, Inc.   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

CHAMBERS OF MITCHELL H. COHEN COURTHOUSE

 JOEL SCHNEIDER 1 John F. Gerry Plaza, Room 2060

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAMDEN, NJ 08101-0887

 (856) 757-5446

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

April 26, 2011

Matthew Benjamin Weisberg,

Esquire 

Prochniak Weisberg, PC

7 South Morton Avenue

Morton, PA 19070 

Mark G. Wolkoff, Esquire

100 North 17th Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

James R. Radmore, Esquire

Two Penn Center, Suite 312

1500 JFK Boulevard

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Joel M. Wertman, Esquire 

Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,

Coleman & Goggin

1845 Walnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

William T. Marshall, Jr.,

Equire

Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP

103 Eisenhower Parkway

Roseland, NJ 07068 

Joseph Semptimphelter

11 Winterset Lane

Marlton, NJ 08053 

Steve Ruffo

105 Revere Drive

Deptford, NJ 08096 

Re: Donnelly, et al. v. Guerriero, et al. 

Civil No. 10-3240 (JHR/JS)

Dear Counsel and Parties:

This letter responds to plaintiff’s April 18, 2011

correspondence. Since the Court was not advised that a settlement

conference could be fruitful (see February 14, 2011 Order), the

conference will not be scheduled. All requests regarding the

briefing schedule on motions returnable before Judge Bumb should

be directed to Judge Bumb’s chambers.

Case 1:10-cv-03240-JHR -JS Document 77 Filed 04/26/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1180
April 26, 2011

Page 2

Absent a contrary Order of the Court, all deadlines in the

September 20, 2010 Scheduling Order shall remain in effect.

Very truly yours,

 

 s/Joel Schneider

JOEL SCHNEIDER

United States Magistrate Judge

JS:jk

cc: Hon. Renée Marie Bumb

Case 1:10-cv-03240-JHR -JS Document 77 Filed 04/26/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1181
#### RICCHE v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

No. 6686.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 2, 1949.

Joseph S. Lord, III, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Philip Price and H. Francis DeLone, hoth of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

McGRANERY, District Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 ■et seq., and was awarded a jury verdict of $3,025. Defendant moved for judgment n. o. v. and for a new trial, and plaintiff ■moved for a new trial limited to the issue •of damages. At oral argument, plaintiff withdrew its motion.

Plaintiff’s case rested upon two alleged accidents, one occurring on February 12, 1945, and the other on August 22, 1946. As to the first, defendant admitted negligence, but pleaded a release in defense; as to the second, defendant claimed that if there was an accident it was not due to its negligence. The case was submitted to the jury on both theories and the jury was instructed, as to the cause of action arising out of the first accident, that plaintiff had the burden of convincing the jury by “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” that the release was “tainted with invalidity, either by fraud * * * or by mutual mistake.” Defendant claims, in support of its motion for judgment on the first cause of action, that there was insufficient evidence to justify submitting the issue of the release to the jury. After examining the record, I cannot agree with this contention and shall, therefore, deny the motion for judgment. It should be pointed out, in addition, that the jury verdict makes clear that the verdict was based on the second accident. Similarly, defendant’s motion for judgment on the second cause of action must be denied. I feel there is ample evidence from which a jury could find that the second accident occurred, and that it was caused by defendant’s negligence. In support of its motion for a new trial, defendant argues that the verdict was excessive, and, in any event, since plaintiff seeks a new trial, as well, the issues are too complex to confine the new trial to damages aloné. However, plaintiff has withdrawn his motion for a partial new trial. Since I do not regard the verdict as excessive, defendant’s motion upon this ground must be denied. In filing its motion, defendant listed various other errors which it claimed called for a new trial. Although these points have not been pressed, I have considered those that were sufficiently identified in the formal motion. None of the objections to the charge, I feel, are well taken. Accordingly, therefore, an order will be entered denying defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v. or for a new trial.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

Case No. 5D 21

- 2025 LT Case No. 2014

- CF

- 1529 JULIO M ORALES R IVERA ,

Appellant ,
v. STATE O F F LORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed November 8, 2022 3.850 Appeal f rom t he Circuit C ourt for Orange County , Mark S. B lechman, Jud ge. Jul io Morales Rivera, M adison, pr o se. Ashley Moody, A ttorney G eneral, Tallahas see, an d L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant A ttorney General, Dayt ona Beach, f or Appellee.

PER CUR IAM. AFFIRMED.

SA SSO , TRAVER and WOZNIAK , JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.4



                  INVESTMENT GUIDELINES OF FORTRESS INVESTMENT CORP.


                  Capitalization terms used but not defined herein shall have
the meanings ascribed thereto in that certain management and advisory agreement
dated as of June 10, 1998 (the "Management Agreement") by and between the
Fortress Investment Corp. (the "Corporation" or the "REIT"), Fortress Investment
Group LLC (the "Manager") and Fortress Partners, LP (the "Operating
Partnership").



<PAGE>



1. No investment of the Corporation or the Operating Partnership shall be made
which would cause the Corporation to fail to qualify as a real estate investment
trust under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

2. No investment of the Corporation or the Operating Partnership shall be made
which would cause the Corporation or the Operating Partnership to be regulated
as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

3. The Corporation shall not invest (and shall not permit the Operating
Partnership to invest) more than 20% of its Gross Equity, determined as of the
date of such investment, in any single asset.

4. The debt of the Corporation (including the Corporation's pro rata share of
debt of its subsidiaries) shall not exceed 90% of the sum of such debt and the
Gross Equity of the Corporation.

5. The Corporation shall not co-invest with the Manager or any of its affiliates
unless (i) Corporation's co-investments is otherwise in accordance with these
Guidelines and (ii) the terms of such co-investment are at least as favorable to
the Corporation as to the Manager or such affiliate (as applicable) making such
co-investment with the manager.
# table199_q21_naics
Case 2:11-cr-00080-SDW Document 100 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 245
#### Lifsha Spira, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 134]

Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the default judgment. While defendant’s excuse for its default, i.e., law office failure by reason of understaffing, is not particularly compelling, it constitutes “good cause” nonetheless *(Casiano v City of New York,*245 AD2d 244 [1997]), especially since there is no evidence that plaintiff was prejudiced; on the other hand, defendant will be severely prejudiced if the motion is granted. Moreover, defendant showed an intent to defend, with its proffer of a stipulation seeking to extend the time to answer before the period expired, and its belated (six months late) service of an answer with a meritorious defense. In our view, this is not an appropriate case for departure from this State’s preference for resolving controversies upon the merits. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
#### Marcella Dinten-Quiros, Appellant, v Kofi E. Brown, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 793]

*589In support of that branch of her motion which was for leave to renew, the plaintiff was required to proffer both new facts not presented on the prior motion that would warrant denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and a reasonable justification for the failure to have presented such facts at that time *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; *Madison v Tahir,*45 AD3d 744 [2007]; *St. Claire v Gaskin,*295 AD2d 336, 337 [2002]). Here, the plaintiff did not provide a reasonable justification for her failure to proffer the alleged new facts in opposition to the defendant’s prior motion. Moreover, the alleged new facts would not have warranted denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to renew. Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Miller, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.