alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Linda Rackis, Appellant, v Robert Adelman, Respondent.

[859 NYS2d 382]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 21, 1994, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Panepinto, J.), dated June 5, 2007, as denied that branch of her postjudgment motion which was for a money judgment for the value of certain real property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of her motion which was for a money judgment against the defendant for the value of certain real property. The plaintiff failed to present documentary proof that the defendant ever had any interest in the property. Thus there was insufficient evidence to establish her entitlement to a money judgment for the value of that property *(see Schacker v Schacker,*43 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2007]; *Shanon v Patterson,*38 AD3d 519, 520 [2007]; *Boris v Boris,*272 AD2d 284, 285 [2000]). Santucci, J.P, Angiolillo, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### Khaled A.F. AL ODAH, Next Friend of Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah, et al., Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 05-5064, 05-5095 to 05-5116.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 25, 2008.

David J. Cynamon, Matthew Jeffrey MacLean, Osman Ahmad Handoo, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, Neil H. Koslowe, Thomas B. Wilner, Shearman & Sterling, Washington, DC, for Appellants.

Eric David Miller, Federal Communications Commission, Robert Mark Loeb, Douglas N. Letter, Litigation Counsel, Catherine Y. Hancock, Paul D. Clement, Gregory George Katsas, Peter Douglas Keisler, Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

*845BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and RANDOLPH * and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Circuit Judge Randolph did not participate in this matter.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

It is ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in *Boumediene v. Bush,*— U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008), the court’s judgment filed February 20, 2007, 476 F.3d 981, in the above-captioned consolidated cases be vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that these cases be remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in *Boumediene v. Bush.*The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
*

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2143

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Roberto Arteaga-Mendez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 9, 2005

Filed: May 16, 2005 

___________

Before BENTON, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roberto Arteaga-Mendez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to

distribute methamphetamine. In the written plea agreement, Arteaga-Mendez

stipulated that he was responsible for between 500 grams and 1.5 kilograms of

methamphetamine. Based on this drug quantity, the district court*

 sentenced ArteagaMendez to 135 months in prison, fifteen months more than the statutory mandatory

minimum sentence. 
-2-

Arteaga-Mendez appeals his sentence, arguing the Government failed to

establish a factual basis for his plea. Based on Arteaga-Mendez’s responses during

the plea colloquy, the written plea agreement, and the agreement’s stipulation of facts,

however, the district court could reasonably decide Arteaga-Mendez likely committed

the offense. See United States v. Gamble, 327 F.3d 662, 664 (8th Cir. 2003).

Although he made no objection in the district court, Arteaga-Mendez also challenges

the district court’s finding of drug quantity. The district court did not commit plain

error because its drug quantity finding is based on Arteaga-Mendez’s drug quantity

stipulation and the unchallenged drug quantity calculation contained in the PSR. See

United States v. Beatty, 9 F.3d 686, 690 (8th Cir. 1993). We note Arteaga-Mendez

does not raise any argument under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 

We thus affirm Arteaga-Mendez’s sentence.

______________________________
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) forthe quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ulrich Gottschling,Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date: May 10, 2006 |   |                                              |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|               | By:    | /S/ Ulrich  Gottschling                           |   |
|               |   | Ulrich  Gottschling                               |
|               |   | Chief Financial  Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-90702, 33-90726, and 33-90732), of PRI Automation, Inc.
of our report dated November 6, 1995, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements of PRI Automation, Inc. as of September 30, 1995 and 1994
and for each of the three years in the period ended September 30, 1995, which
report is included in the Company's 1995 Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                     /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                     -----------------------------
                                     COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P. 



Boston, Massachusetts
December 16, 1996
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37367

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSE TRINIDAD MURILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 718

Filed: November 23, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of six years, for aggravated battery, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jose Trinidad Murillo was convicted of aggravated battery, Idaho Code §§ 18-903(a), (b), 

(c); 18-907(a), (b). The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of six years. Murillo appeals, contending that the sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 
2

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Murillo’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY

#### Margaret Carol Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia

September 23, 1998

Case No. LC98-381

BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. LEDBETTER, JR.

Ms. Morris has petitioned for restoration of her operator’s license under Virginia Code § 46.2-361. Ms. Morris was determined by DMV to be an habitual offender on January 11, 1996, based on three convictions of driving while her license was suspended or revoked. The predicate convictions are as follows: (1) in Stafford County General District Court on October 11, 1988; (2) in Fredericksburg General District Court on September 12, 1989; and (3) in Spotsylvania County General District Court on November 20, 1995.

When a person has been adjudged an habitual offender based solely upon convictions of driving on a suspended license for failure to pay fines and costs, he or she may petition the court *at any time*for restoration of operator’s license upon proof that all outstanding fines and costs have been paid. In other words, there is no mandatory waiting period as in other habitual offender cases.

The three convictions recited above resulted from Ms. Morris’ failure to pay fines and costs. Her license had been suspended for that reason, and she was convicted in each instance for driving after such suspension. These convictions constitute the types of convictions listed in §46.2-361(B) for which immediate restoration, upon payment of all fines and costs, is available.

However, DMV points out that on all occasions when Ms. Morris was driving a vehicle that led to the predicate convictions, her license stood suspended for failure to pay the uninsured motorist fee required under § 46.2-706. That suspension arose out of a conviction in Stafford County General *407District Court on August 18, 1988, for operating an uninsured vehicle. That suspension was issued under § 46.2-707.

Therefore, even though Ms. Morris did not pay fines and costs associated with some of her convictions, so that her license was suspended for that purpose, the fact remains that her underlying, or seminal, suspension was the 1988 DMV order of suspension issued under § 46.2-707. A suspension under § 46.2-707 is not one of those suspensions which, when it is the basis of the predicate convictions, enables one to seek restoration upon payment of fines and costs. This case is controlled by the decision of this court in *Greene*v. *Commonwealth of Virginia,*Spotsylvania County Circuit Court # CL97-440 (Op. Ltr. Nov. 3,1997). 

Because Ms. Morris’ habitual offender determination was not “based entirely upon convictions as set out in subdivision 1(C) of § 46.2-351,” the court has no authority to restore her license under § 46.2-361 (B). The requisite three-year waiting period under § 46.2-361(A) has not expired. For this reason, the petition must be denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10Q FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,737
<SECURITIES>                                   109,408
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               322,566
<PP&E>                                         130,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 502,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          164,873
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     330,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   502,876
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               284,169
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,378
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,214
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,164
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.1

                       FORM OF 18-MONTH LOCK-UP AGREEMENT


Date:  September 30, 1997

To:     Juno Acquisitions, Inc.
        370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1808
        New York, NY  10017


Re:     Lock-up of Shares of Common Stock

Ladies/Gentlemen:

LK Global (Holdings) NV ("LKNV") is the legal and beneficial owner of 12,845,000
shares of LK Global Information Systems, BV ("LK Global"). LK Global (Holdings)
NV is aware that LK Global is contemplating a reorganization with Juno
Acquisitions, Inc. ("Juno").

I hereby confirm that I have full power and authority to enter into this letter
agreement to restrict the transferability of LKNV's shares. LKNV agrees that it
will not sell or otherwise dispose of 10,160,400 shares of the Juno Common Stock
received by it in the Reorganization owned directly, indirectly or beneficially
by it or available to it at this time or at the Closing Date of the
Reorganization, for a period of eighteen months subsequent to the Closing Date
of the Reorganization, without the written consent of the Juno Board of
Directors.

LKNV represents that it has not taken, and will not take, directly or
indirectly, any action designed to or which might reasonably be expected to
cause or result in the stabilization or manipulation of the price of the Common
Stock, or to facilitate the sale or resales of the Common Stock.

Very truly yours,

LK Global (Holdings) NV

-----------------------------
By:     Lycourgos K. Kyprianou
        Managing Director
Address:       Duke's Court, Duke's Street
               Woking Surrey GU215BH
               England
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Salvador GALVAN-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-1387-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Aug. 15, 2008.

Darrell B. Fields, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Appeals Bureau, New York, N.Y., for Appellant.

Benton J. Campbell, U.S. Atty., Steven Tiscione, Jo Ann M. Navickas, Asst. U.S. Attys., Brooklyn, N.Y., for Appellee.

Present: JON 0. NEWMAN and GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.*

*

 The Honorable Reena Raggi, who was originally a member of this panel, has recused herself, and the appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel, who are in agreement. *See*2d Cir. R. 0.14(b).

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Salvador GalvanRios appeals from the April 3, 2007, judgment of the District Court, sentencing him *25primarily to 46 months’ imprisonment following his plea of guilty to illegal reentry after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts.

The Appellant contends that the sentence, which was at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range, is unreasonable in view of his family circumstances and commendable steps toward rehabilitation for his drug problems. We see no basis for disturbing the sentence. The District Judge considered the relevant factors, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), took family circumstances and rehabilitation into account, and reasonably concluded that the Appellant’s commission of a narcotics offense after he had illegally reentered following deportation warranted a sentence of 46 months. The fact that more lenient sentences have been given in so-called “fast-track” districts was not asserted in the District Court and, in any event, does not warrant appellate relief, *see United States v. Pereira,*465 F.3d 515, 522-23 (2d Cir.2006); *United States v. Mejia,*461 F.3d 158, 164 (2d Cir.2006).
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual report on Form 10KSB of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund VI, LP, (the Partnership) for the period ended December 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive
Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 1, 2007



|                                                                                        |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Dean Cash                                                                           |  | 
|Dean L. Cash                                                                            |  | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner) |  |
EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)   I, Dr. Thomas Drees, Chief Executive Officer, and David Nelson, Principal Accounting Officer, of Sanguine Corporation (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, 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 our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period December 31, 2009, of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (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 the Registrant.  Dated:  April 12. 2010 By:  /s/ Dr. Thomas Drees  Dr. Thomas Drees  Chief Executive Officer  By:  /s/  David Nelson David Nelson, Chief Financial Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanguine Corporation and will be retained by Sanguine Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4337-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 14, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.

Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Levy, Nassau, Suwannee, and Union Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-21651 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P