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

No. 12-3575.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 7, 2013.

Filed: April 5, 2013.

Dan Chatham, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John P. Messina, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Kelvin Maximillion Stanford, Olivehurst, CA, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kelvin Stanford appeals after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. Stanford’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has 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 committed an error in calculating Stanford’s Guidelines range, imposed an unreasonable sentence, and plainly erred in imposing a special condition of supervised release.

First, we conclude that there is no merit to counsel’s argument challenging the district court’s Guidelines calculations. *See United States v. Swanson,*610 F.3d 1005, 1007-08 (8th Cir.2010) (district court’s Guidelines applications are reviewed de novo and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error; application of firearm enhancement requires district court to make finding that gun facilitated or had potential to facilitate drug possession; facilitation requirement “may be met when a defendant concurrently possesses drugs and a firearm while in public, like in a car”). Second, we find no basis for concluding that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (discussing appellate court review of sentencing decision under abuse-of-discretion standard; noting that appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines-range sentence). Third, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in imposing an alcohol ban as a special condition of Stanford’s supervised release. *See United States v. Roberts,*687 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (8th Cir.2012) (upholding alcohol ban for daily, heavy user of marijuana, because alcohol use limits recovering person’s ability to maintain drug-free lifestyle). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues.

*596Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
Exhibit 32.2
 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
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2008 (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 operation of the Company.
 By:
    
    /s/ Bryan McGuireName:
    
    Bryan McGuireTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    November 18, 2008
Filed 8/17/23 P. v. Reyes CA4/3

Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDRES QUINONEZ REYES,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G059251

 (Super. Ct. No. 04CF2780)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, 

Richard M. King, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and 

Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

BACKGROUND

Defendant Andres Quinonez Reyes was convicted of the second degree 

murder of Pedro Javier Rosario. Reyes was not the actual shooter. Following the 

passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2-4) (Senate Bill No. 1437) in 

2018, Reyes filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former Penal Code section 

1170.95.1 

The trial court appointed counsel for Reyes and conducted an evidentiary 

hearing. Following that hearing, the court concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a 

jury would have found defendant guilty of murder even after the passage of Senate Bill 

No. 1437. The trial court therefore denied Reyes’s section 1172.6 petition. In an 

unpublished opinion, this court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the petition.

The California Supreme Court granted Reyes’s petition for review, and 

reversed the judgment of this court with directions to remand the matter to the trial court. 

(People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 992.) Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the 

trial court and remand this matter with directions to conduct further proceedings on 

Reyes’s section 1172.6 petition, consistent with the California Supreme Court’s opinion.

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s postjudgment order denying the petition for resentencing is 

1

 Effective June 30, 2022, Penal Code section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6, 

with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will refer to the statute as 

section 1172.6. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the 

California Supreme Court’s opinion in People v. Reyes, supra, 14 Cal.5th 981.

MOTOIKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

BEDSWORTH, J.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the filing by ADE Corporation (the Company) of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2003 (the Report), the undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    BRIAN C. JAMESBrian C. James Chief Financial Officer
[QUARLES & BRADY LLP LETTERHEAD]





June 29, 2000




The AAL Mutual Funds
Legal Department
222 West College Avenue
Appleton WI  54914

Re: CONSENT TO INCORPORATION OF OPINION LETTER

Gentlemen:

                  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our
legal opinion dated December 28, 1999 in the Post-Effective Amendment to the
Registration Statement on Form N-1A of The AAL Mutual Funds being filed this day
with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 485(b) under the
Securities Act of 1933. We understand that this consent is being filed as an
Exhibit to said Post-Effective Amendment.

Very truly yours,

/s/QUARLES & BRADY LLP

QUARLES & BRADY LLP
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE PAGE 1 

NO. 03-15-00656-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

FRANCES GRAHAM, 

 APPELLANT, 

v. 

LNV CORPORATION, 

 APPELLEE. 

Appeal from the Justice Court, Precinct 3, Place 1 

Travis County, Texas 

Trial Court Case No. C-1-CV-15-005910 

Hon. Eric Shepperd, presiding 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

Please take notice that the undersigned and the law firm of Mackie Wolf 

Zientz & Mann, P.C., hereby appear as counsel for Appellee LNV 

CORPORATION and request all notices given or required to be given in this case, 

and all papers served or required to be served in this case, including, without 

limitation, notices and any orders, applications, complaints, demands, hearings, 

motions, petitions, pleadings or requests, and any other documents brought before 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00656-CV

7512336

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

10/23/2015 11:03:30 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/23/2015 11:03:30 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE PAGE 2 

this Court in this case, whether formal or informal, whether written or oral, and 

whether transmitted or conveyed by mail, telephone, facsimile or otherwise be 

served upon the undersigned attorney at the following address:

Mark D. Cronenwett 

MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P.C. 

14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900 

Dallas, Texas 75254 

Telephone: (214) 635-2650 

Facsimile: (214) 635-2686 

mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com

 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Mark D. Cronenwett 

 MARK D. CRONENWETT

 Texas Bar No. 00787303 

mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com 

MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, 

PC 

14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900 

Dallas, Texas 75254 

(214) 635-2650 

(214) 635-2686 (Fax) 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

LNV CORPORATION
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE PAGE 3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of October, 2015, a true and correct copy 

of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail to the party listed below: 

Frances Graham 

2405 Crownspoint Drive 

Austin, Texas 78748 

/s/ Mark D. Cronenwett________ 

MARK D. CRONENWETT
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the filing of the amended Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q/A for the Quarter Ended January 31, 2003 (the "Report") by Forgent
Networks, Inc. ("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
            amended, and

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


                                          /s/ RICHARD N. SNYDER
                                          -----------------------------
                                          Richard N. Snyder
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          May 29, 2003


                                          /s/ JAY C. PETERSON
                                          -----------------------------
                                          Jay C. Peterson
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          May 29, 2003
ex10_22.htm











EXHIBIT 10.2.2







Compensation paid to all non-employee directors of EMC Insurance Group Inc. (the “Board”) during calendar year 2012 was as follows:








	
  

	
·

	
An annual fee of $30,000, irrespective of attendance at meetings;













	
  

	
·

	
An annual fee of $10,000 to the Chair of the Board;













	
  

	
·

	
An annual fee of $4,000 to the chair of each Board committee which elected a chair; however, the annual fee to the chair of the Audit Committee was $10,000;













	
  

	
·

	
A fee of $2,000 and reimbursement of travel and business expenses for each Board meeting at which the director was in attendance;













	
  

	
·

	
A fee of $2,000 and reimbursement of travel and business expenses for each Board committee meeting that the director was in attendance; however, the chair of each Board committee received an additional $1,000 for each committee meeting at which such director served as chair;













	
  

	
·

	
Each Board member was also entitled to $2,000 per day and reimbursement of business expenses for each educational program or seminar attended to assist such Board member in effectively carrying out his or her responsibilities as a director of the Company.  In the case of “webinars” and similar computer based educational programs, each Board member received a $250 fee unless such webinar exceeded two hours in length, in which case the Board member was entitled to $2,000.







 


 



185
SPEAKING ROSES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

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


Solely for the purposes of complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, the  undersigned
Chief  Financial  Officer  of  Speaking  Roses   International,   Inc.,  a  Utah
corporation (the  "Company"),  hereby certify,  based on my knowledge,  that the
Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB/A of the Company  for the three  months  ended
March 31, 2004 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

By  /s/ Dan Mumford
    ------------------------------
    Dan Mumford,
    Acting Chief Financial Officer

June 22, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 35877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17359]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control

    Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Health Promotion and Disease 
Prevention Research Centers, Special Interest Project Competitive 
Supplements (SIPS) (U48 Panels N, O and P), RFA-DP09-101SUPP09, Initial 
Review
    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting.
    Time and Dates:
9 a.m.-5 p.m., August 5, 2009 (closed).
9 a.m.-5 p.m., August 6, 2009 (closed).
9 a.m.-5 p.m., August 7, 2009 (closed).
    Place: Westin Hotel, 3377 Peachtree Road, NE., Atlanta, GA, 30326, 
Telephone (678) 500-3100.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 
provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., 
and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services 
Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of the application received in response to 
``Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers, Special 
Interest Project Competitive Supplements (SIPS) (U48 Panels N, O and 
P), RFA-DP09-101SUPP09, initial review.''
    Contact Person for More Information: Brenda Colley-Gilbert, PhD, 
Director, Extramural Research Program Office, CCH, 47770 Buford 
Highway, MS K-92, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (770) 488-8390.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: July 16, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-17359 Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
6 6

Table 25. Wives who earn more than their husbands, 1987-2003

(Numbers in thousands)

Married-couple 

families in which 

wife (but not 

necessarily 

husband) had 

earnings from 

work

Wives who earn

more than their

husbands1

Percent of wives

who earn more 

than

their husbands1

Married-couple 

families in which 

both wife and 

husband had 

earnings from 

work

Wives who earn

more than their

husbands2

Percent of wives

who earn more 

than

their husbands2

1987......... 32,025 7,581 23.7 29,755 5,311 17.8

1988......... 32,810 7,827 23.9 30,503 5,520 18.1

1989......... 33,119 8,068 24.4 30,848 5,796 18.8

1990......... 33,093 8,221 24.8 30,794 5,923 19.2

1991......... 33,516 8,983 26.8 30,998 6,465 20.9

1992......... 33,987 9,715 28.6 31,221 6,948 22.3

1993......... 34,286 10,000 29.2 31,264 6,978 22.3

1994......... 35,066 10,184 29.0 32,091 7,209 22.5

1995......... 34,819 9,822 28.2 32,030 7,033 22.0

1996......... 35,120 10,070 28.7 32,389 7,340 22.7

1997......... 35,613 10,309 28.9 32,745 7,441 22.7

1998......... 35,806 10,467 29.2 32,782 7,443 22.7

1999......... 36,454 10,548 28.9 33,340 7,434 22.3

2000......... 37,037 11,070 29.9 33,873 7,906 23.3

2001......... 36,864 11,329 30.7 33,665 8,130 24.1

2002......... 36,905 11,765 31.9 33,531 8,391 25.0

2003......... 36,761 11,923 32.4 33,189 8,351 25.2

Families in which wives have earnings 

but husbands may not

Families in which both wives and husbands 

have earnings

Year

1

 Includes families in which husband had no earnings from

work. 2 Excludes families in which husband had no earnings

from work.

NOTE: These data, collected in the Annual Social and

Economic Supplement, reflect the earnings and work experience of the entire year.
NUMBER 13-20-00370-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.J.V.R., A CHILD 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 377th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on August 25, 2020, attempting to appeal an 

order of termination of appellant’s parental rights entered on July 14, 2020. On August 

25, 2020 and September 29, 2020, the clerk of this court informed appellant the notice of 

appeal was not timely filed. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that 

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 

42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within fifteen days from 

the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 
2

Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice. Subsequently, on October 15, 2020, this 

Court abated the appeal for a determination of whether appellant had abandoned the 

appeal. The trial court appointed new appellate counsel and this Court notified the newly 

appointed counsel of the defect in the notice of appeal and advised counsel that, if the 

defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice, the appeal 

would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant’s counsel has responded, informing this Court that the defect cannot be 

cured. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s inability 

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c). 

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed the

17th day of December, 2020.
EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATIONS OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of New-Era Trading
Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"),
I, Steven L. Hocke, hereby certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, 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 and belief:

         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 New-Era
Trading Group, Inc.



Dated: July 19, 2004             By: /s/ Steven L. Hocke
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                  Name:  Steven L. Hocke
                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                         Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
# Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses (Annual)

"The Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses news release presents the rate and number of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses for the preceding year.  Data are presented for specific industries by private sector, and state and local government.  Case circumstance and worker characteristic data are presented for injury and illness cases resulting in days away from work.  For additional information see:  www.bls.gov/iif ."

- Employers report 2.8 million injury and illness cases in 2022, up 7.5% from 2021
- Employers report 2.6 million injury and illness cases in 2021, down 1.8% from 2020
- Employers reported 2.7 million injury and illness cases in 2020, down 5.7% from 2019
- Employer-reported injury and illness rate was 2.8 cases per 100 workers in 2019
- Employer-reported injury and illness rate unchanged in 2018 at 2.8 cases per 100 workers
- Employer-reported injury and illness rate declined to 2.8 cases per 100 workers in 2017
- Employer-reported injury and illness rate declined to 2.9 cases per 100 workers in 2016
- Employer-reported injury and illness rate declined to 3.0 cases per 100 workers in 2015
- Employer-reported injury and illness rate declines to 3.2 cases per 100 workers in 2014
- Employer-reported injury and illness rate declined to 3.3 cases per 100 workers in 2013
- Employer-reported injury and illness rate declined to 3.4 cases per 100 workers in 2012
- Employer-reported injury and illness rate declined to 3.4 cases per 100 workers in 2012