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

No. 12-2992.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 20, 2013.

Filed: April 1, 2013.

Matt R. Molsen, Special, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joel Ochoa-Gonzalez, Florence, CO, pro se.

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joel Ochoa-Gonzales directly appeals the 168-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug charge. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court abused its discretion because the sentence was greater than necessary to meet the goals of sentencing.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. The record reflects no procedural error, and the sentence — which was below the advisory Guidelines range — is not substantively unreasonable. *See United States v. Feemster,*572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures that no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); *United States v. Elodio-Benitez,*672 F.3d 584, 586 (8th Cir.2012) (“ ‘where a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further’ ” (quoting *United States v. Moore,*581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir.2009))).

*562After an independent review of the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Grace 7,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending August 31, 2007, I, Virginia K.
      Sourlis, Chief Executive Officer and 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, to the best of my knowledge
      and
      belief, that:





1.
      Such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending August 31, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
      ending August 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
        October 5, 2007


By:/s/
                  VIRGINIA K. SOURLISVirginia
                K. Sourlis
              Chief
                  Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW   Document 88   Filed 10/25/13   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3459

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW   Document 88   Filed 10/25/13   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3460
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5091

To provide a technical correction to the Federal preemption of State or 

local laws concerning the markings and identification of imitation or 

toy firearms entering into interstate commerce. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2004

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. ISSA, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, and Mr. 

DINGELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To provide a technical correction to the Federal preemption 

of State or local laws concerning the markings and identification of imitation or toy firearms entering into interstate commerce.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Toy Gun Marking Im5 provement Act’’. 
2

•HR 5091 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PREEMPTION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAWS CON2 CERNING THE MARKINGS AND IDENTIFICA3 TION OF IMITATION OR TOY FIREARMS. 

4 Section 4 of the Federal Energy Management Im5 provement Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 5001) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end: 

7 ‘‘Such term does include any toy replica of an an8 tique firearm developed prior to 1898.’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (g), by amending paragraph 

10 (1) to read as follows: 

11 ‘‘(1) prohibit the sale or manufacture of any 

12 look-alike, nonfiring, toy or collector replica of an 

13 antique firearm developed prior to 1898; or’’.

Æ
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

A minor relocation (approximately 2,000 feet) will occur on the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCNST) in 2009. The trail will be re-routed from its current location within the White Pass Ski Area south to the Wilderness boundary on the edge of the expansion area with the purpose of maintaining a quality, uninterrupted backcountry experience for PCNST users and to minimize their views of ski area structures and facilities. All activities were analyzed in the White Pass Expansion Master Development Plan Proposal Final Environmental Impact Statement and documented in the June 2007 Record of Decision. Relocation will begin in July 2009 and is expected to be completed by fall 2009. Trail relocation will be done in conjunction with the Pacific Crest Trail Association. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this trail relocation to Randall Shepard, Naches District Ranger, USDA, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 10237 US Highway 12, Naches, WA 98937, 509-653-1415. 

Dated: July 8, 2009. 

Randall D. Shepard, 

Naches District Ranger, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

[FR Doc. E9-16649 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
902 A.2d 900

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD M. ONOREVOLE, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 011271983).

August 3, 2006.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that RICHARD M. ONOREYOLE of LAKE HIAWATHA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, and who was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months effective November 1, 2005, by Order of this Court filed on October 5, 2005, be restored to the practice of law, effective immediately.
Case 2:11-cv-02308-SDW-MCA Document 53 Filed 04/18/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 531
Case 2:11-cv-02308-SDW-MCA Document 53 Filed 04/18/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 532
Case 2:11-cv-02308-SDW-MCA Document 53 Filed 04/18/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 533
Case 2:11-cv-02308-SDW-MCA Document 53 Filed 04/18/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 534
#### United States *v.*Hilbury.

*(District Court, E.*D. *South Carolina.*

January 11, 1887)

1. Post-Office—Intercepting and Opening Letters—Delivery—“In Care of. ”

Tlie words. “In care of F. Kressel, ” on a letter directed to A., indicate that it is to be delivered through Kressel; they mean that A., and not Kressel, is the person to whom the letter is to go.

3. Same—Kev. St. IT. S. § 3893.

One who, with the purpose of obstructing a correspondence, or of prying into the secrets of the person to whom a letter is directed, takes the letter from tlie party in whoso care it is sent through the mails, and opens it, is guilty of the oil'onse defined in Rev. St. U. S. §3892, and liable to the penalty iherein denounced.

Indictment under Rev. St. U. S. § 3892, for intercepting and opening. letters.

*Asst. Dist. Atty.*Furman, for the United States.

*W. W. Thomas,*for defendant.

Simonton, J.,

*(charging jury.)*The evidence on the part of the government, not denied by defendant, shows that one Henry Merrick is keeper of the life-saving station on Morris island, Charleston harbor, defendant being one of his crew; that all letters, official and personal, for Merrick, come to the Charleston post-office, directed to tlie care of F. Kressel, who keeps a shop in that city. When any of Merrick’s crew come to the city they call at Kressol’s for Merrick’s letters. The two letters in question were left by a letter carrier at Kressel’s, directed to “Keeper Life-saving Station, Morris Island,” care of F. Kressel. The defendant called for them, and at once opened and read them. It is charged that he had no authority to do this. Defendant denies this charge.

The attorney for defendant has requested the judge to charge the jury that, as the letters wore directed to the care of Kressel, and were delivered to Kressel, the defendant cannot be convicted under this section, as the letters had passed out of the custody of the post-offico department. Your inquiry is, to whom were these letters directed? Did the defendant open them before they were delivered to the person to whom they were directed? If, therefore, you find that these letters had been in the post-offico, or in the custody of a letter carrier, and had been left at *706Kressel’s, to be'delivered to the keeper of the life-saving station, no one had a right to break the envelope but the person to whom, not to whose care, they were directed, or some one acting under his authority to do so. The words on the letters, “In care of F. Kressel,” indicate that they were to be delivered through Kressel. They do not mean that he is the person to whom the letters were directed. The keeper of the life-saving station was the person to whom the letters were directed; and if the defendant opened them before they were delivered to him, and so opened them without authority, you can find him guilty under this section, (U. *S.*v. *McCready,*11 Fed. Rep. 225,) if his purpose was to obstruct the correspondence, or pry out the business or secrets of thekeeper.
ETN 12.31.2012 EX 10(k)


Exhibit 10(k)




FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EATON CORPORATION 
SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PLAN II 
 (January 1, 2008 Restatement)
WHEREAS, the Corporation maintains in effect the Eaton Corporation Supplemental Benefits Plan II under a January 1, 2008 Restatement, as amended (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Pension Administration Committee reserves the right to amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Pension Administration Committee wishes to amend the Plan in order to reflect the corporate restructuring of Eaton Corporation pursuant to which common shares of Eaton Corporation will be converted into ordinary shares of Eaton Corporation plc.
NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is amended, effective as of the Merger Effective Time described in the Transaction Agreement dated May 21, 2012, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Transaction Agreement, dated June 22, 2012, and Amendment No. 2 to the Transaction Agreement, dated October 19, 2012, between Cooper Industries plc, Eaton Corporation, Abeiron Limited, Comdell Limited, Turlock B.V., and Turlock Corporation, to provide as follows: 
1. Section 2(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
(a)    “Pension Administration Committee” means the committee comprised of corporate officers of Eaton Corporation plc appointed by the Board of Directors from time to time to administer the retirement benefit programs of Eaton Corporation plc and any of its subsidiaries.
2. Section 2(b) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
(b)    “Board of Directors” means the Board of Directors of Eaton Corporation plc.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Pension Administration Committee has caused this Amendment to be executed through duly authorized persons on this 29th day of November, 2012.


PENSION ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE


By:  __________________________________ 


Title: _________________________________
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1259 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to reauthorize the 

Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. CARPER, Mr. WARNER, Mr. COONS, Mr. KAINE, 

and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to 

reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 

Watertrails Network. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Gate5 ways and Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1259 IS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

2 Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act 

3 of 1998 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 105–312) 

4 is amended by striking ‘‘2019’’ and inserting ‘‘2025’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 135 (Thursday, July 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16949]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 09-03]


Naveena Exports, Ltd. v. Go-Trans, Inc.; Erratum

Served July 13, 2009.
    In the Notice of Complaint and Assignment in Docket 09-03, served 
July 7, 2009 and appearing in the Federal Register on July 13, 2009 (74 
FR 33441-33442), the next-to-last sentence of the first paragraph is 
corrected to read, ``Complainant states that Respondent has agreed not 
to contest this Complaint in order to allow Complainant to secure the 
release of FMC Bond No. 18084F, in partial payment of the total damages 
incurred by Complainant.''

Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16949 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Case 2:11-cr-00212-GEB Document 19 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 41
Case 2:11-cr-00212-GEB Document 19 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 42
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jermaine Kellogg, Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 884]

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 11679 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:13

- cr - 00127

- MEW

- GRJ

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ROBERT EUGENE SPIKER, Defendant

- Appell ant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (November 19, 2014) Before HULL , MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-11679 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 1 of 22 Roland Falcon , appointed counsel fo r Robert Spiker, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel ’ s assessment of t he relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel ’ s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Spiker’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 14-11679 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15(d)-15(e)) for the registrant and 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
registrants 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; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 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 controls 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: November 14, 2008
    /s/  RYUJI UENORyuji Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of Spring Capital Corp., (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to each such officer’s knowledge, that:





(1)    The quarterly report on form 10-q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (“the Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and





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





Dated: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Kelly T. HickelKelly T. Hickel

Chief Executive Officer





Dated: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Jan E. ChasonJan E. Chason

Chief Financial Officer





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.
#### Griffith *v.*Segar and others.

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

February 5, 1887.)

Patents for Inventions — Infringement — Several Patents — Pleading— Multtfarioüsners.

A bill in equity for infringement, founded upon five separate patents, containing in the aggregate sixteen claims, which does not contain an allegation that the inventions are capable of conjoint nse, or that the structure manufactured and sold by defendants combines all of the patented features, is bad for nmltifariousness.

In Equity. On Demurrer to bill.

*Edwin H. Risley,*for complainant.

*Thomas Richardson,*for defendants,

Coxe, J.

This is an equity action for infringement, founded upon five separate patents, containing in the aggregate sixteen claims, granted to the complainant for improvements in folding beds and cots. The defendants demur on the ground that the bill is multifarious, no reason appearing for uniting five distinct causes of action in one suit. There is no allegation in the hill that the inventions are capable of conjoint use, or that the structure manufactured and sold by the defendants combines all of the patented features. The averments in that behalf would bo sustained by proof that the defendants manufactured and sold five separate beds, each of which infringed one of the patents in question, hut no one of which infringed all of them, or more than one of them. The authorities are quite uniform in declaring such a bill insufficient. *Hayes*v. Dayton, 8 Fed. Rep. 702; *Nellis*v. *McLanahan,*6 Fish. 286; *Nourse*v. *Allen,*4 Blatchf. 376; *Horman Patent Manufg Co.*v. *Brooklyn City R. Co.,*15 Blatchf. 444; *Barney*v. Peck, 16 Fed. Rep. 413; *Lilliendahl*v. *Detwiller,*18 Fed. Rep. 176; Walk. Pat. § 417.

*708It would seem, from a casual examination of the patents in question, that it would hardly he possible to combine in one structure all the inventions therein claimed; but, if the defendants do so infringe, there should be an appropriate allegation to that effect.

The demurrer is allowed, the complainant to amend within 20 days..
Exhibit No. 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 quarterly report of Juhl Wind, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the undersigned’s knowledge:





(1)   the Report of the Company filed today 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 operation of the Company.





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.





Date:  May 12, 2011
/s/John J. BrandJohn J. BrandPrincipal Financial Officer