alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________**

No. 23

- 30475 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,** 

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Michael Craig Singleton, Jr.,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:22

- CR

- 264

- 1

**_____ _________________________** 
Before **King, Haynes,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
Michael Craig Singleton, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 60 months in prison. On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in determining that he was not eligible
to be sentenced pursuant to U .S.S.G § 5C1.2 because he possessed a firearm
in connection with the offense . We review the district court’s findings of fact

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 19, 2024
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-30475 Document: 60-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024pertaining to sentencing under § 5C1.2 for clear error and consider its legal interpretation of § 5C1.2 de novo. See United Stat es v. Vasquez , 161 F.3d 909, 910 (5th Cir. 1998).
Singleton concedes that he possessed a firearm in the center console
of the vehicle that he was driving and of which he was the only occupant but argues that this possession was not related to the cocaine that was in a spare tire on the undercarriage of the vehicle. He asserts that the firearm was left accidentally in the vehicle by his brother , he placed the firearm in the center
console for his brother to retrieve, and the fire arm played no role in his drug trafficking activities.
The record supports that there was the necessary temporal and spatial relationship between the firearm, the offense, and Singleton. See id. at 912; United States v. Guidry , 960 F.3d 676, 683 & n.7 (5t h Cir. 2020)

. Further, Singleton did not show that it is clearly improbable that the firearm, which was loaded and readily accessible to him in a car transporting cocaine, was connected to the drug offense. See Guidry , 960 F.3d at 683; Vasquez , 161 F.3d

at 912.

Thus , the district court did not clearly err in refusing to apply § 5C1.2. The judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-30475 Document: 60-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2024
#### Sharon Iris et al., Respondents, v Sonya Greene et al., Appellants.

[987 NYS2d 172]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated December 18, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

On February 23, 2012, the plaintiff Sharon Iris (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), was injured when she was struck by a vehicle while she was crossing Middle Neck Road at its intersec*756tion with Great Neck Road in Great Neck. The vehicle was being operated by the defendant Sonya Greene, and was owned by the defendant George Greene. At the time of the accident the vehicle, was making a left turn from Great Neck Road onto Middle Neck Road, and the injured plaintiff was within the crosswalk, with the traffic light in her favor. The injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendants. After issue was joined, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Pieper v Hussein,*102 AD3d 760 [2013]; *Azeem v Cava,*92 AD3d 821 [2012]; *Qamar v Kanarek,*82 AD3d 860 [2011]). However, in opposition to the motion, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff was comparatively at fault *(see Pieper v Hussein,*102 AD3d at 761; *Azeem v Cava,*92 AD3d at 821). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, UlrichGottschling, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SRS Labs, Inc.;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

c)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

d)    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s third fiscal quarter endedSeptember 30, 2006 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.
| Dated: November 7, 2006 |                     |
|-------------------------|--------------------------|
|                    | /S/  Ulrich Gottschling  |
|                    | Ulrich  Gottschling      |
|                    | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2788 

To designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at the March 

Field Air Museum in Riverside, California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2009 

Mr. CALVERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California. 

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 ‘‘Distinguished Flying 

5 Cross National Memorial Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS 

7 NATIONAL MEMORIAL IN RIVERSIDE, CALI8 FORNIA. 

9 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2788 IH

1 (1) The most reliable statistics regarding the 

2 number of members of the Armed Forces who have 

3 been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross indi4 cate that 126,318 members of the Armed Forces re5 ceived the medal during World War II, approxi6 mately 21,000 members received the medal during 

7 the Korean conflict, and 21,647 members received 

8 the medal during the Vietnam War. Since the end 

9 of the Vietnam War, more than 203 Armed Forces 

10 members have received the medal in times of con11 flict. 

12 (2) The National Personnel Records Center in 

13 St. Louis, Missouri, burned down in 1973, and thus 

14 many more recipients of the Distinguished Flying 

15 Cross may be undocumented. Currently, the Depart16 ment of Defense continues to locate and identify 

17 members of the Armed Forces who have received the 

18 medal and are undocumented. 

19 (3) The United States currently lacks a na20 tional memorial dedicated to the bravery and sac21 rifice of those members of the Armed Forces who 

22 have distinguished themselves by heroic deeds per23 formed in aerial flight. 

24 (4) An appropriate memorial to current and 

25 former members of the Armed Forces is under conVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:18 Jun 11, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2788.IH H2788

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2788 IH

1 struction at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, 

2 California. 

3 (5) This memorial will honor all those members 

4 of the Armed Forces who have distinguished them5 selves in aerial flight, whether documentation of 

6 such members who earned the Distinguished Flying 

7 Cross exists or not. 

8 (b) DESIGNATION.—The memorial to members of the 

9 Armed Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished 

10 Flying Cross that is under construction at March Field 

11 Air Museum in Riverside, California, is hereby designated 

12 as the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial. 

13 (c) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The national memo14 rial designated by this section is not a unit of the National 

15 Park System, and the designation of the national memo16 rial shall not be construed to require or permit Federal 

17 funds to be expended for any purpose related to the na18 tional memorial. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE YEAR TO DATE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,236,307
<SECURITIES>                                   144,682
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,548,597
<ALLOWANCES>                                   256,362
<INVENTORY>                                  1,745,523
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,613,984
<PP&E>                                       1,541,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                 922,437
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,738,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,438,899
<BONDS>                                      3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,654
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,183,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,738,116
<SALES>                                     14,336,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,429,314
<CGS>                                        8,701,263
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,438,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,788
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,997,127)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,997,127)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,997,127)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-95249) pertaining to the TESSCO Technologies Incorporated Team Member Stock Purchase Plan and the Registration Statements (Form S-8
No. 33-87178, Form S-8 No. 333-118177 and Form S-8 No. 333-158758), pertaining to the TESSCO Technologies
Incorporated Second Amended and Restated 1994 Stock and Incentive Plan and Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan, of our report dated May 21, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of TESSCO Technologies Incorporated included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 29, 2009.

/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP


Baltimore,
Maryland
May 21, 2009

---



QuickLinks
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2864 

To amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 to authorize 

funds to acquire hydrographic data and provide hydrographic services 

specific to the Arctic for safe navigation, delineating the United States 

extended continental shelf, and the monitoring and description of coastal 

changes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2009 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 

1998 to authorize funds to acquire hydrographic data 

and provide hydrographic services specific to the Arctic 

for safe navigation, delineating the United States extended continental shelf, and the monitoring and description of coastal changes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

4 Section 306 of the Hydrographic Services Improve5 ment Act of 1998 (33 U.S.C. 892d) is amended by adding 

6 at the end the following new paragraphs: 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2864 IH

1 ‘‘(7) To acquire hydrographic data, provide hy2 drographic services, and conduct coastal change 

3 analyses necessary to ensure safe navigation, and to 

4 improve the management of coastal change in the 

5 Arctic, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 

6 and 2012. 

7 ‘‘(8) To acquire hydrographic data and provide 

8 hydrographic services in the Arctic necessary to de9 lineate the United States extended continental shelf, 

10 $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 and 

11 2012.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6543
LENNOX ALLEYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER D. MCLEOD; SERGEANT G. W. ODOM; OFFICER I. BRIGMAN, in their indi vidual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-219-4-20BE) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 24, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lennox Alleyne, Ap pellant Pro Se. L. Hunter Limbaugh, WILLCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Alleyne v. McLeod , No. CA96-219-4-20BE (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Network  Commerce  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, N.
Scott  Dickson,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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


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



Dated: November 12, 2002                       By:  /s/ N. Scott Dickson
                                                    ___________________________
                                                    N. Scott Dickson
                                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS III, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STUART SHERMAN, Warden, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-16262 

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01312-LJO-EPG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Norman Gerald Daniels III appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an 

access-to-courts claim related to his legal blindness. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-16262 

claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We 

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Daniels’s action as barred by the 

doctrine of claim preclusion because Daniels alleged nearly identical claims 

against defendant, or his privy, in a prior federal action in which there was a final 

judgment on the merits. See id. (elements of claim preclusion); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. 

Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 

2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if there is 

substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality 

of interest.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
### 1996 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-31-1996 

# S a ni-D air y v

. S ec Ag r i

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 95-3304,95-3304

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1996 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S a ni -D air y v

. S e c Agr i " (1996). 1996 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 144. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996/144UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 95-3304

SANI-DAIRY, a division of Penn Traffic Co., Inc.; JOHN P. STRITTMATTER, d/b/a Strittmatters D airy; DELBERT THOMAS; ED THOMAS; LOWELL FRIEDLI N; ARTHUR BLOOM; JAMES L. HARTEIS

v.
CLAYTON YEUTTER, Secretary of Agriculture, U nited States Department of Agriculture; COMMISSION ER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS, STATE OF NEW YO RK

(D.C. Civil No. 90-cv-00222)

MILK MARKETING, INC.

v.
CLAYTON YEUTTER, Secretary of Agricultur e, United States Department of Agriculture

(D.C. Civil No. 90-cv-00236)

CLAYTON YEUTTER, Secretary of Agriculture , United States Department of Agriculture; DAN GLICKMAN, Secretary of Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,* Appella nts

(*Pursuant to Rule 12(a), F.R.A.P.)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C OURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANI A

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on Marc h 15, 1996

Before: NYGAARD, SAROKIN and ALDISERT, Circuit Jud ges.
(Opinion Filed: July 31, 1996)

__________ORDER AMENDING OPINION FILED JULY 31, 1996

__________ Upon reviewing the submissions of counsel for appellee, Milk Marketing Inc., it is hereby ordered that the opini on filed in this case on July 31, 1996 be amended as follows: t he language contained in footnote 1 is to be deleted and replac ed with the following: As set forth by the district court in its December, 1994 opinion at footnote one "B y Memorandum Order dated October 29, 1991, (Docket No. 22), the Secretary's motion t o dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff Sani-Dairy was granted because Sani-Dairy , a milk producer, or "handler" as that term is defined by 7 C.F.R. 1002.7 failed to exha ust its administrative remedies before seekin g judicial review."

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 1996 By the Cour t,

/s/ Richar d L. Nygaard Circui t Judge