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

No. 12-3394.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 11, 2013.

Filed: March 15, 2013.

Travis D. Poindexter, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.

Roseann A. Ketchmark, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. U.S. Attys., Kansas City, MO (David M. Ketchmark, Acting U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

*545PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Perkins appeals the sentence imposed by the District Court1 after he pleaded guilty to escaping from the custody of the transitional halfway house where he was confined under a federal criminal judgment. *See*18 U.S.C. § 751(a). On appeal, he argues that because the court imposed a three-year period of supervised release to be served after completion of an eighteen-month term of imprisonment, his sentence is longer than necessary to serve the goals of sentencing and is thus substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and a sentence within a properly calculated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range is presumed to be reasonable, *United States v. Petreikis,*551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir.2009). Perkins does not contest the Guidelines range recommended in the presentence investigation report and adopted by the District Court. Rather, Perkins argues that his sentence became substantively unreasonable when the court imposed a period of supervised release to be served after his uncontested term of imprisonment. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the three-year term of supervised release — a term that was authorized by statute. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(a) (authorizing court to impose a term of supervised release after imprisonment); *id.*§ 3583(b)(2) (authorizing a term of supervised release not to exceed three years for a Class D felony). The fact that Perkins would have preferred a longer term of imprisonment over a term of supervised release does not render unreasonable a presumptively reasonable sentence.

To the extent Perkins argues that the court did not adequately consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, we reject his argument and note that the District Court stated that it had taken into consideration all of the § 3553(a) factors, particularly Perkins’s “quite remarkably extensive record” and his apparent unwillingness to “conform [his] conduct [to] what’s required under the law.” Sent. Tr. at 7.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOSEPH ARUANNO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

11-CV-2521

 

ORDER

THIS MATTER coming before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1); the Court having reviewed the filings 

submitted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant; for the reasons stated in this Court’s 

accompanying Opinion; and for good cause appearing;

IT IS on this 5th day of December 2011, hereby,

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED, and it is further 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.

 /s/ William J. Martini 

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-02521-WJM Document 16 Filed 12/05/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 70
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 Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glen A. Miller, Vice President and 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:



| | (2) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2009                        
|                                          
|/s/ Glen A. Miller                        
|Glen A. Miller                            
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EX-10.35



 EXHIBIT 10.35 
 Amendment to Employment Agreement 
 This Amendment to that certain employment agreement
dated as of February 25, 2010, as amended, by Domino’s Pizza LLC, a Michigan limited liability corporation (the “Company”) and Lynn M. Liddle (the “Executive”) (the “Agreement”) is dated
as of July 26, 2010. 
 WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements set forth herein and in the Agreement, the parties here to agree as follows.

 1. Section 4.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and substituting the following
therefore: 
 “4.1 Base Salary. The Company shall pay the Executive a base salary at the rate of Two Hundred and
Eighty-Three Thousand Dollars ($283,000) per year, payable in accordance with the payroll practices of the Company for its executives and subject to such increases as the Board of Directors of the Company or the Compensation Committee (the
“Board”) in its sole discretion may determine from time to time (the “Base Salary”).” 
 2. Effective as
of April 28, 2010, Section 4.2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and substituting the following: 
 “4.2 Bonus Compensation. During the term hereof, the Executive shall participate in the Company’s Senior Executive Annual Incentive Plan, as it may be amended from time to time pursuant
to the terms thereof (the “Plan,” a current copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.2) and shall be eligible for a bonus award thereunder (the “Bonus”). For purposes of the Plan, the Executive shall be
eligible for a Bonus (as defined in the Plan), and the Executive’s Specified Percentage (as defined in the Plan) shall be Fifty Percent (50%) of Base Salary. Whenever any Bonus payable to the Executive is stated in this Agreement to be
prorated for any period of service less than a full year, such Bonus shall be prorated by multiplying (x) the amount of the Bonus otherwise payable for the applicable fiscal year in accordance with this Sub-Section 4.2 by (y) a
fraction, the denominator of which shall be 365 and the numerator of which shall be the number of days during the applicable fiscal year for which the Executive was employed by the Company. Any compensation paid to the Executive as Bonus shall be in
addition to the Base Salary.” 
 3. The Employment Agreement as otherwise amended is in all other respects confirmed. 

4. This amendment shall be effective as of the dates provided herein. 
 [Remainder of Page Left Intentionally Blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been duly executed this
26th day of July, 2010 and is effective as described
herein. 
  

							
	THE COMPANY:	 		 	DOMINO’S PIZZA LLC
				
		 		 	By:	 	/s/ J. Patrick Doyle
		 		 	Name:	 	J. Patrick Doyle
		 		 	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
			
	THE EXECUTIVE:	 		 	 /s/ Lynn M. Liddle

		 		 	Name: Lynn M. Liddle
[894 NYS2d 321]

#### Mia Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Noel Kellon, Respondent, v Mercury Ins. Co., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December 9, 2009

*40APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Picciano & Scahill, P.C.,*Westbury *(Jason Tenenbaum*of counsel), for appellant. *Ilona Finkelshteyn, PC.,*Brooklyn, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order is affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant served various discovery requests, seeking, among other things, to conduct an examination before trial of plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant served plaintiffs assignor with a notice of deposition and notified plaintiffs counsel of the deposition request. When the assignor failed to appear for the deposition, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that, by virtue of the assignment, party status may be imputed to the assignor and, even if such status could not be so imputed, the assignor was under the plaintiff assignee’s control *(see*CPLR 3126 [3]). The Civil Court denied the motion, and defendant appealed.

By its terms, the CPLR 3126 (3) dismissal sanction is applicable only to the disclosure violations of parties, not nonparties *(see*Siegel, NY Prac § 367 [4th ed]). By virtue of their assignment of no-fault benefits to their providers, eligible injured persons have divested themselves of their interest in those benefits, and they are not parties to actions commenced by their assignees *(see e.g. Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]; *Cardtronics, LP v St. Nicholas Beverage Discount Ctr., Inc.,*8 AD3d 419, 420 [2004]; 6A NY Jur 2d, Assignments §§ 59, 85). Similarly, a provider’s party status cannot be imputed to the assignor by virtue of an assignment. Thus, since plaintiff’s assignor is not an officer, member or employee of plaintiff or otherwise under plaintiff’s control, the Civil Court properly denied the motion for sanctions as against plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3126 (Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3101:20; *see Doelger, Inc. v L. Fatato, Inc.,*7 AD2d 1003 [1959]; *National Bank of N. Hudson v*
      *41
      *Kennedy,*223 App Div 680 [1928]; *see also Schneider v Melmarkets Inc.,*289 AD2d 470 [2001]; *Zappolo v Putnam Hosp. Ctr.,*117 AD2d 597 [1986]; *Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v GEICO Indem. Co.,*20 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51756[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; *A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.,*14 Misc 3d 143[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50384[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Rios, J.E, Pesce and Golia, JJ, concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted May 4, 2011

Decided May 6, 2011

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐3365

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

JAMAAL DESHAWN LEE,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 10‐CR‐89‐BBC‐01

Barbara B. Crabb

Judge.

O R D E R

Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration arrested Jamaal Lee after he sold

cocaine to an informant in Madison, Wisconsin. Lee was charged with distributing cocaine,

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(E)(ii). He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 months’

imprisonment, the top of his guidelines range. Lee filed a notice of appeal, but his

appointed lawyer moves to withdraw on the ground that the case is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lee has not responded to counsel’s submission. See CIR. R.

51(b). We confine our review to the points discussed in counsel’s facially adequate brief.

See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 10‐3365             Page 2  

We are given no indication that Lee wants his guilty plea vacated, so counsel

appropriately omits discussing possible challenges to the plea colloquy or the voluntariness

of the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel details his

thorough search through the record for possible challenges to Lee’s sentence, but he did not

find even an arguable appellate claim in this straightforward prosecution. Counsel devotes

the most attention to whether Lee could argue that the district court failed to adequately

consider the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Counsel has concluded that this

potential argument would be frivolous, and we agree. At sentencing, Lee argued that he did

not deserve to be imprisoned because his criminal behavior was a result of drug addiction

and negative family influences. He said he should be sentenced to probation so he could go

to drug treatment right away. But the district court did not ignore these arguments; the

court considered them and decided they were outweighed by the need to deter Lee from

continuing to break the law and adding to his already extensive criminal history. The court

addressed all of Lee’s arguments in mitigation and offered an adequate explanation for the

sentence it chose, and compliance with § 3553(a) requires nothing more. See United States v.

Kilgore, 591 F.3d 890, 893 (7th Cir. 2010).

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

48. Employment status of male Vietnam-era veterans and nonveterans by age

(Numbers in thousands)

Veteran status and age

Civilian 

noninstitutional

 population 

Civilian labor force 

1998 1999

Total Employed Unemployed

1998 1999 1998 1999

Number Percent of

labor force

1998 1999 1998 1999

VIETNAM-ERA VETERANS

Total, 40 years and over ....................................... 7,773 7,761 6,526 6,381 6,348 6,200 179 180 2.7 2.8

 40 to 54 years .................................................... 5,950 5,497 5,313 4,842 5,163 4,703 150 139 2.8 2.9

 40 to 44 years ................................................. 741 513 662 452 637 431 24 20 3.7 4.5

 45 to 49 years ................................................. 2,237 1,868 2,011 1,645 1,955 1,593 56 52 2.8 3.2

 50 to 54 years ................................................. 2,972 3,116 2,641 2,745 2,571 2,679 70 66 2.6 2.4

 55 years and over .............................................. 1,822 2,263 1,213 1,539 1,184 1,497 29 42 2.4 2.7

NONVETERANS

Total, 40 to 54 years ............................................ 20,304 21,289 18,403 19,291 17,879 18,784 523 507 2.8 2.6

 40 to 44 years .................................................... 9,218 9,426 8,512 8,716 8,269 8,482 242 234 2.8 2.7

 45 to 49 years .................................................... 6,796 7,323 6,190 6,655 6,020 6,484 170 171 2.7 2.6

 50 to 54 years .................................................... 4,290 4,540 3,701 3,920 3,590 3,818 111 101 3.0 2.6

 NOTE: Male Vietnam-era veterans are men who served in the Armed

Forces between August 5, 1964 and May 7, 1975. Nonveterans are men who

have never served in the Armed Forces. Beginning in January 1999, data

reflect revised population controls used in the household survey.

227
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the "Company") for the period
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Richard J. Gaynor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



Date:
February 25, 2009

/s/ RICHARD J. GAYNORRichard J. GaynorChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CITY SELECT AUTO SALES, INC., 

a New Jersey corporation, 

individually and as the 

representative of a class of 

similarly situated persons, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID/RANDALL ASSOCIATES, INC. 

and RAYMOND MILEY, III, 

Defendants.

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE 

Civil Action

No. 11-2658 (JBS/KMW) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendants’ 

motion for decertification [Docket Item 133]; and by way of 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Docket Item 141]; and 

for the reasons explained in the Opinion of today’s date; and 

for good cause shown; 

IT IS this 27th day of March , 2015 hereby 

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for decertification [Docket 

Item 133] shall be, and hereby is, DENIED; and it is further 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

[Docket Item 141] shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED as to the 

Plaintiff’s Class’s claims under the TCPA as to Defendant 

David/Randall Associates, Inc., and DENIED as to Defendant 

Raymond Miley, III; and it is further 

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 152 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 8293
ORDERED that JUDGMENT shall be entered in favor of the 

Plaintiff Class and against Defendant David/Randall Associates, 

Inc. in the amount of $22,405,000; and it is further 

ORDERED that the Plaintiff Class consists of “[a]ll persons 

or entities, with whom David/Randall Associates did not have an 

established business relationship, who were successfully sent 

one or more unsolicited faxes during the period March 29, 2006, 

through May 16, 2006, stating, “ROOF LEAKS??? REPAIRS AVAILABLE 

Just give us a call and let our professional service technicians 

make the repairs!” and “CALL: David/Randall Associates, Inc. 

TODAY” to whom notice under Rule 23(c)(2) has previously been 

directed and who have not requested exclusion; and it is further 

ORDERED that Class Counsel shall, within thirty (30) days 

hereof, propose a schedule for the remainder of the case, 

including whether the Plaintiff Class seeks certification of 

this Judgment as final as to David/Randall Associates, Inc., 

under Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., whether notice of this 

judgment should be provided to the class members at this time 

under Rule 23(d)(1)(B), and other procedural matters. 

 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE 

Chief U.S. District Judge 

2

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 152 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 8294
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. Appendix 2), 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 Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Ancillary Studies in Immunomodulation Clinical Trials.                     

*Date:*                         February 17, 2009.                     

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 3 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817,  (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Paul A. Amstad, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program,  Division of Extramural Activities,  DHHS/National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616,  Bethesda, MD 20892-7616,  301-402-7098,                         *pamstad@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation  Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

 [FR Doc. E9-1654 Filed 1-26-09; 8:45 am] 

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

**CERTIFICATIONS 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 report of Ridgewood Energy T Fund, LLC (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund. 

| Dated: June 22, 2007 | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY T FUND,   LLC |
|----------------------|--------------------------------|
|                 |                           |   |
|                 | By:                            | /s/ ROBERT E. SWANSON |
|                 |                           |  |
|                 | Name:                          | Robert E. Swanson |
|                 | Title:                         | President and Chief   Executive Officer |
|                 |                           | (Principal Executive   Officer) |
|                 |                           |   |
| Dated: June 22, 2007 |                           |   |
|                 | By:                            | /s/ KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY |
|                 |                           |  |
|                 | Name:                          | Kathleen P. McSherry |
|                 | Title:                         | Senior Vice President and   Chief Financial Officer |
|                 |                           | (Principal Financial and   Accounting Officer) |

A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to Ridgewood Energy T Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy T Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

23