alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3591

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Jerry L. Jones, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 3, 2006 Filed: October 4, 2006

___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jerry L. Jones appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. C ounsel argues that Jones’s 37-month sentence is unreasonable because the court improperly applied an obstruction-of-justice enhancement.-2- We conclude that the enhancement wa s proper in light of Jones’s undisputed presentencing conduct, which included using drugs and failing to appear for a court hearing to show cause why his bond should not be revoked. SeeUnited States v. Thomas , 72 F.3d 92, 93 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (whether obstruction-of-justice enhancement applies to specific conduct is reviewed de novo; affirming enhancement where, after pleading guilty and being rel eased on bail, defendant tested positive for drugs and absconded for three months). Further, Jones fails to rebut the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Lincoln , 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range gives rise to presumption of reasonableness, which defendant must rebut), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
Exhibit 99.6

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                            CONTACT: Andrea J. Keller
November 20, 1998                                          Frederick Brewing Co.
                                                           301-694-7899 x120


                         FBC Announces Personnel Changes
Mid-Atlantic's Largest Craft Brewer Takes Steps to Improve Financial Performance

FREDERICK, MD - Frederick Brewing Co. (NASDAQ: BLUE) announced today personnel
changes that the specialty brewer says will streamline its sales and
distribution management and help reduce costs in 1999.

The changes include the planned departures of Jim Lutz, president of Frederick
Brewing Co. (FBC) subsidiary, Wild Goose Brewery, and Marc Tewey, president of
FBC subsidiary, Brimstone Brewing Co. Both will leave the Company when their
current contracts expire in January, 1999. FBC President and COO, Marjorie
McGinnis, will then serve as president of all Companies, and current personnel
will absorb the sales and marketing functions of both subsidiaries. Jim Lutz
also resigned from FBC's Board of Directors, effective November 6, 1998. Lutz
had been a director since the merger between the Wild Goose Brewery and
Frederick Brewing Co. in January of 1998.

"Jim and Marc have been excellent contributors to the future of the Company,"
said Frederick Brewing Co. Chairman and CEO Kevin Brannon, "helping us integrate
their brands into the Frederick Brewing Co. portfolio. We will miss Jim's
experience and Marc's energy." Brannon said both men intend to pursue other
career interests outside the brewing industry.

Separately, the Company has also disclosed the departure of Craig O'Connor,
former director of new business development, who resigned October 6, 1998.
O'Connor had served as FBC Vice President of Finance and Administration, from
1994 - 1997, until moving to his most recent position in late 1997. His
position, created primarily to service new, outside markets, will not be filled
in the immediate future. Instead, existing personnel will absorb O'Connor's
responsibilities. "Craig's hard work, loyalty, and unflagging optimism had a lot
to do with this Company's growth from 600 barrels to 35,000 barrels," Brannon
said. "We will all miss him." O'Connor also intends to pursue career
opportunities outside the brewing industry.

FBC President Marjorie McGinnis noted, "These changes, although painful, reflect
our belief that these top-heavy management positions had to be eliminated to
maintain competitiveness in the current market environment. Together with
additional overhead reductions, these changes should ensure that we continue the
improvement in financial performance we've made in the second half of 1998."

                                             # # #
CERTIFICATION OF
                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                          PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  (the
"Report") of  Amplidyne,  Inc. (the  "Company")  for the quarter ended March 31,
2005, I, Devendar S. Bains,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Principal  Accounting
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)   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/ Tarlochan S. Bains
--------------------------------------------------------
Tarlochan S. Bains
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer


May 23, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,976
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,729
<PP&E>                                         601,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,865
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 592,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,962
<BONDS>                                        160,455
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           328
<OTHER-SE>                                     342,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   592,607
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,813
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,160
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,440
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,213
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,783
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.85


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aleek Ephraim, Appellant.

[859 NYS2d 379]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated May 22, 2007 *(People v Ephraim,*40 AD3d 1010 [2007]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered April 26, 2005.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, PJ., Fisher, Dillon and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
----

|   | a) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m(a)      or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the  Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 14,      2008 | /s/ Roy      Swan |
|---------------------------------------|-------------------|
|                                  | Roy      Swan     |

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Intelligroup, Inc, (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vikram
Gulati, Chief Executive 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 and to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

|(1) |  | The Report fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act);
      and
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                                         
|(2) |  | The information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
  Company.                      

|DATE: November
      13, 2009 | By: | /s/ Vikram
      Gulati      
|----------------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|                              |     |                              
|                              |     | Vikram
      Gulati          
|                              |     | Chief Executive
      Officer

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Boston RestaurantAssociates, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)           The Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended April 24, 2005 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: July 19, 2005 |   /s/     George R. Chapdelaine |   |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | George R. Chapdelaine                                         |
|                      | President and Chief Executive Officer                         |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUVENILE MALE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-30354.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

R.C., a juvenile male, appeals from an order in which the district court adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and sentenced him to five years detention based on violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2)(B) (sexual abuse) and 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) (offense committed within Indian country). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), R.C.’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental *779brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL MEDICAL, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AN IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,957,328
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,964,694<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,248,386
<PP&E>                                       4,469,777<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,051,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,234,675
<BONDS>                                      7,790,549
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  6,742,390
<COMMON>                                        16,803
<OTHER-SE>                                    (850,890) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,051,014
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,679,880
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,894,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               769,434
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             384,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                631,357
<INCOME-TAX>                                   252,615
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            378,742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   378,742
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND PP&E ARE SHOWN NET.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Hampton Navigation, Inc., Respondent, v Pinpoint Systems International, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[666 NYS2d 705]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Pinpoint Systems International appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated March 25, 1997, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the first, second, and fourth causes of action of the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the appellant’s motion is granted, and the first, second, and fourth causes of action are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

Viewing the amended complaint and affidavits submitted on the motion in a light most favorable to the plaintiff *(Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87), we find that the first, second, and *486fourth causes of action fail to state causes of action. The fourth cause of action, purporting to set forth a claim under the Donnelly Act (General Business Law § 340 [1]), contains only vague, conclusory allegations which fail to identify an injury to competition cognizable under the statute (see, *Home Town Muffler v Cole Muffler,*202 AD2d 764; *cf, Crane & Shovel Sales Corp. v Bucyrus-Erie Co.,*854 F2d 802, 804-808; *Rutman Wine Co. v Gallo Winery,*829 F2d 729, 734-736; *Re-Alco Indus, v National Ctr. for Health Educ.,*812 F Supp 387, 390-392).

Further, the first cause of action, alleging that the defendant Pinpoint Systems International breached an oral dealership agreement by terminating it without notice, also fails to state a cause of action. The allegations set forth in the amended complaint, read together with the affidavits submitted on the motion, establish that the alleged oral dealership agreement was terminable at will *(Liberty Imports v Bourguet,*146 AD2d 535, 536; *cf., Haines v City of New York,*41 NY2d 769, 772-773; *see also, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp.,*58 NY2d 293, 304-305; *Electronics Communications v Toshiba Am. Consumer Prods.,*129 F3d 240). Since the second cause of action seeks specific performance of the above dealership agreement, that cause of action must also be dismissed. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lemer, JJ., concur.
Exhibit






Exhibit 4(a)-2
SUPPLEMENT DATED 15 MARCH 2018 TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED 15 SEPTEMBER 2017
WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION (EAST MIDLANDS) PLC 
 (incorporated and registered with limited liability in England and Wales under registration number 02366923)
and
WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION (SOUTH WALES) PLC
(incorporated and registered with limited liability in England and Wales under registration number 02366985)
and
WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION (SOUTH WEST) PLC
(incorporated and registered with limited liability in England and Wales under registration number 02366894)
and
WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION (WEST MIDLANDS) PLC
(incorporated and registered with limited liability in England and Wales under registration number 03600574)
 £3,000,000,000
Euro Medium Term Note Programme
This supplement (the Supplement) to the prospectus dated 15 September 2017 (the Prospectus) which comprises a base prospectus for the purposes of Article 5.4 of the Prospectus Directive constitutes a supplementary prospectus for the purposes of Section 87G of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the FSMA) and is prepared in connection with the  £3,000,000,000 Euro Medium Term Note Programme (the Programme) established by WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION (EAST MIDLANDS) PLC, WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION (SOUTH WALES) PLC, WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION (SOUTH WEST) PLC and WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION (WEST MIDLANDS) PLC (the Issuers).  Terms defined in the Prospectus have the same meaning when used in this Supplement. When used in this Supplement, Prospectus Directive means Directive 2003/71/EC (as amended, including by Directive 2010/73/EU), and includes any relevant implementing measure in a relevant Member State of the EEA.
This Supplement is supplemental to, and should be read in conjunction with, the Prospectus and any other supplements to the Prospectus issued by the Issuer.
Each of the Issuers accepts responsibility for the information contained in this Supplement. To the best of the knowledge of each of the Issuers (which has taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case) the information contained in this Supplement is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information.
Purpose of the Supplement
The purpose of this Supplement is amend the following formula for the calculation of “Index Figure applicable” in Condition 8 of the Prospectus which has been the subject of a formatting error:


	
			
	IFA = RPI m3+
	(Day of Calculation Date 1)
(Days in month of Calculation Date)
	(RPI m2 RPI m3)




(the Erroneous Formula)
The Prospectus is hereby amended by replacing the Erroneous Formula with the following formula:


	
			
	IFA = RPI m-3+
	(Day of Calculation Date 1)
(Days in month of Calculation Date)
	(RPI m-2  - RPI m-3)











General Information
Save as disclosed in this Supplement, there has been no other significant new factor, material mistake or inaccuracy relating to information included in the Prospectus since the publication of the Prospectus.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Janet M. Biski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of my knowledge:

 

3.                                     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

4.                                     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 16, 2004 |                     |
|----------------------------|--------------------------|
|                       | By:                      | /s/ Janet M.  Biski |
|                       | Janet M. Biski           |
|                       | Chief Financial  Officer |
|                            |                          |  |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Innkeepers USA Trust (the Company) for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Jeffrey H. Fisher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.

Date: March 1, 2007



/s/ Jeffrey H. FisherJeffrey H. Fisher Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President