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

No. 06-14786

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 10, 2008.

Mauricio L. Aldazabal, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lisa T. Rubio, Anne R. Schultz, Dawn Bowen, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

*180Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant received the mandatory minimum sentence of 36 months’ incarceration prescribed by 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), attempting to bring an alien into the United States for financial gain. He now appeals his sentence, contending that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level on the ground that he committed the offense while on supervised release.

The Guidelines sentence range the court found called for a prison term of 15-21 months. That range was inapplicable, however, because the mandatory minimum sentence the court was required to impose exceeded the sentence range. See U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.l(b) Therefore, even if we were to agree with appellant—that the court erred in enhancing his offense level—the error was harmless.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     UT
<LEGEND>
  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
  THE STATEMENT OF INCOME, STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS, BALANCE SHEET, AND
  STATEMENT OF COMMON STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>         0000811156
<NAME>        CMS ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       4,356 
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     2,841 
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,138 
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        1,458 
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                      0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  9,793 
<COMMON>                                            1 
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       2,267 
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              (189)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  1,977 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             393 
<PREFERRED>                                       238 
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            1,528 
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                382 
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       1,744 
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                      0 
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                     609 
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                           0 
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        75 
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   34 
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  2,711 
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   9,793 
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       4,787 
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                              117 
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      4,041 
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      4,158 
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                           629 
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                (12)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                    617 
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          306 
<NET-INCOME>                                      311 
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        43 
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                     268 
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          119 
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           0 
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                            657 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    2.63<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.61 
<FN>
<F1> EPS for CMS Energy Common Stock $2.63
     EPS for Class G Common Stock    $1.84
</FN>
        

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
#### Richard Edward CABEY, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Bonnie BOYETTE, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 07-7369.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

*522Richard Edward Cabey, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Edward Cabey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cabey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. With respect to Cabey’s double jeopardy claim, for which the district court previously granted a certificate of appealability, we affirm the denial of relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.*
#### In the Matter of Joseph Parks, Petitioner, v Joseph T. Smith, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 710]

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with soliciting goods or services, possessing unauthorized organizational materials and failing to comply with facility correspondence procedures. At the conclusion of the tier II disciplinary hearing that followed, petitioner was found guilty of possessing unauthorized organizational materials—namely, a photograph of himself depicting a gang symbol—and not guilty of the remaining charges, and a penalty was imposed. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the underlying determination.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the photograph of petitioner and the testimony of a senior counselor trained in identifying gang-related materials, provides substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see Matter of Williams v Goord,*13 AD3d 760, 761 [2004]; *Matter of Campoverde v Selsky,*9 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2004]; *Matter of Delos Santos v*
      *1124Goord, 4 AD3d 709, 710 [2004]; *Matter of Knickerbocker v Goord,*276 AD2d 1008 [2000]; *Matter of Feliciano v Selsky,*263 AD2d 810, 810-811 [1999]). Petitioner’s testimony that the hand gesture at issue constituted a form of meditation used in the practice of his religion presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Smith v Goord,*45 AD3d 1119 [2007]). As for the senior counselor’s failure to endorse the misbehavior report, this omission is not fatal as the counselor’s name and position appear on the face of the misbehavior report, petitioner had the opportunity to question this individual at the hearing and petitioner has failed to demonstrate any resultant prejudice *(see Matter of Winbush v Goord,*6 AD3d 821, 822 [2004]; *see also Matter of Blackwell v Goord,*12 AD3d 816, 817 [2004]). Finally, our review of the record discloses no evidence of hearing officer bias or any indication that the underlying determination flowed from such alleged bias *(see Matter of Burgess v Goord,*45 AD3d 1144 [2007]; *Matter of Witkowski v Goord,*45 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2007]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          12,798
<SECURITIES>                                    13,826
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                       305
<INVENTORY>                                        213
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,833
<PP&E>                                           6,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,056)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,781
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,626
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,781
<SALES>                                          3,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,006
<CGS>                                              192
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,439)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,926)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     885
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,041)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 32


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                         (18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted)

         In  connection  with the Annual  Report of DG  Liquidation  Inc.'s (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ending July 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Harold
Blumenkrantz,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company and Gerald
Koblin,  Secretary,  Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the
Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted),

         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.

Dated:  July 14, 2004                   /s/ Harold Blumenkrantz
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Harold Blumenkrantz, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  July 14, 2004                   /s/  Gerald Koblin
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Gerald Koblin, Secretary,
                                        Treasurer and Chief  Financial and
                                        Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 32

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

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zenith National Insurance Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Stanley R. Zax, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kari L. Van Gundy, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge:



/s/ STANLEY R. ZAXName:

Stanley R. ZaxTitle:

Chairman of the Board and President
(Chief Executive Officer)Date:

February 10, 2010/s/ KARI L. VAN GUNDYName:

Kari L. Van GundyTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

February 10, 2010


---



QuickLinks
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1183** 

WANDA SCOTT , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 6:13

- cv - 00943

- MGL )

Submitted : September 17, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Wanda Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wanda Scott appeals the district court ’ s or der accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district cour t.
Scott v. Soc. Sec. Admin. , No. 6:13

- cv - 00943

- MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2015)
. We deny all of Scott’s pending motions, including her motions for a court order, to unmoot, for change of venue, for recusal , and for public PACER
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Aspect Medical
Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended July 3, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, J. Neal Armstrong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 Company.


                                                         /s/ J. Neal Armstrong
                                                        ------------------------
Dated:   August 11, 2004                                J. Neal Armstrong
                                                        Chief Financial Officer

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Aspect Medical Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Aspect
Medical Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Argued and submitted October 31, 2007,

sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed May 21, 2008

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*JEFFREY MARK CLARK, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Columbia County Circuit Court

021146; A126677

185 P3d 531

Bronson D. James, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Legal Services Division, and Jennelle Meeks Barton, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.

Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.

PER CURIAM
- art2full
- part2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                      12,104,335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              110,345,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                21,396,235
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           101,053,614
<PP&E>                                       1,295,610
<DEPRECIATION>                                 150,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             116,431,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    132,774,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 13,562,629
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (30,316,978)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               116,431,957
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,519,326
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,357,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            17,809,125
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,615,035
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (20,261,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (20,785,769)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (10.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Charles B. PETERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Jessie M. PETERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

Civ. Nos. 5935, 5936.

United States District Court, W. D. Oklahoma.

June 2, 1954.

*582Remington Rogers, Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiffs.

Leonard L. Ralston, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.

CHANDLER, District Judge.

The question is whether plaintiffs’ claims for tax refunds for the calendar year 1947 were timely filed. The last day of a three year period allowed by statute for filing of the refund claims fell on Sunday, July 15, 1951. Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 322(b) (1).

Néither the Tulsa nor the Oklahoma City office of the Collector of Internal Revenue was open on Saturday, July 14, 1951. Claims for refunds were placed in the United States mails in Tulsa, Oklahoma for first class mailing on Saturday, July 14, 1951. The* evidence shows that in the normal course of the mails claims so mailed would have been deposited in the United States Post Office box of the Collector in Oklahoma City on Sunday, July 15, 1951, and found by the Collector in his morning mail on Monday, July 16, 1951.

Mr. Justice Douglas in Union National Bank of Wichita, Kansas v. Lamb, 1949, 337 U.S. 38, 69 S.Ct. 911, 912, 93 L.Ed. 1190 said:

> “There is a contrariety of views whether an act which by statute is required to be done within a stated period may be done a day later when the last’ day of the period falls on Sunday. Thus Street v. United States, 133 U.S. 299, 10 S.Ct. 309, 33 L.Ed. 631, treating Sunday as a dies non under a statute which authorized the President to transfer army officers from active duty and to fill vacancies in the active list on or before January 1, 1871, allowed the action to be. taken on the following day. We think the policy of that decision is applicable to 28 U.S.C. [1948 Ed.] § 2101(c), 28 U.S.C.A. § 2101(c). Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that where the last day for performance of an act falls on a Sunday or a legal holiday, performance on the next day which is not a Sunday or legal holiday is timely. That rule provides the method for computation of time prescribed or allowed not only by the rules or by order of court but by ‘any applicable statute.’ Since the rule had the concurrence of Congress, and since no contrary policy is expressed in the statute governing this review, we think that the considerations of liberality and leniency which find expression in Rule 6(a) are equally applicable to 28 U.S.C. [1948 Ed.] § 2101(c), 28 U.S.C.A. § 2101(c). The appeal therefore did not fail for lack of timeliness.”

See also Wilkes v. U. S., 5 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 128.

*583For the same reasons it is concluded that plaintiffs’ claims for refund were timely filed.

Judgment is entered for plaintiffs in the amount of $2,872.76 with interest at 6% from the date of the filing of their returns, July 15, 1948, and for their costs in this action.
#### LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, and Lucent Technologies Guardian I LLC, Counterclaim Defendant, and Multimedia Patent Trust, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. GATEWAY, INC., Gateway Country Stores LLC, Gateway Companies, Inc., Cowabunga Enterprises, Inc., and Gateway Manufacturing LLC, Defendants/Counterclaimants-Appellees, and Dell Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Microsoft Corporation, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Cross Appellant.

Nos. 2007-1546, 2007-1580, 2008-1022.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2007.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).