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

No. 10-30012.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 16, 2011.

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Michael Edward Scoville, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Carol Elewski, Esquire, Tumwater, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

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 **

*755Edward Asatoorians appeals from the 41-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for six counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Asatoorians contends that the district court erred in applying a four-level leadership role enhancement under Guidelines section 3Bl.l(a). This contention fails because the record reflects that Asatoorians exercised considerable decision making authority in the scheme and exerted control or authority over at least one of the other participants in the bank fraud. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a); *United States v. Garcia,*497 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir.2007).

Asatoorians also suggests that the district court procedurally erred by failing to (1) adequately explain its sentence and address his statutory sentencing arguments; (2) treat the Guidelines as advisory; (3) consider the statutory sentencing factors, and (4) use the Guidelines range as a starting point without improperly presuming the reasonableness of a within-Guidelines sentence. These arguments fail because the record makes clear that the court considered the parties’ arguments closely and, aware of its obligations under section 3553(a), selected a high-end sentence out of a particular concern for Asatoorians’s demonstrated history of recidivism. The court’s explanation was sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review of the sentence, and the court did not otherwise procedurally err. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (enbanc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2938 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2938

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
                         hydroelectric project.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 12187, the Commission may, at the request of the licensee for 
the project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good 
faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that section 
and the Commission's procedures under that section, extend the time 
period during which the licensee is required to commence the 
construction of the project for up to 3 consecutive 2-year periods from 
the date of the expiration of the extension originally issued by the 
Commission.
    (b) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period required for 
commencement of construction of the project described in subsection (a) 
has expired prior to the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Commission may reinstate the license effective as of the date of its 
expiration and the first extension authorized under subsection (a) 
shall take effect on the date of such expiration.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2938

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
                         hydroelectric project.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Randolph FREEMAN, also known as Dee, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-60741

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 31, 2011.

Gaines H. Cleveland, Jay Tresca Golden, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John William Weber, III, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Gulfport, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Randolph Freeman appeals the revocation of his supervised release and imposition of 41 months of imprisonment. Freeman contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the revocation petition because his rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(1) and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution were violated when he was deprived of an initial *397appearance for 27 months following the execution of the revocation warrant.

We need not determine when the revocation warrant was executed because Freeman has not established that he was prejudiced by the alleged 27-month delay. *See United States v. Tippens,*39 F.3d 88, 90 (5th Cir.1994). Therefore, he has failed to establish a due process violation and demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise, in the denial of his motion to dismiss.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ladon Rogers, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[666 NYS2d 66]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that a photo array shown to a prosecution witness was unduly suggestive and that County Court should therefore have suppressed an in-court identification of him by that witness. The array contained photos of six men with similar features, skin tone and hair styles. Although defendant is the only person in the array looking to his left, the viewer’s attention is not drawn to defendant’s photo in such a way as to indicate that the police were urging a particular selection *(see, People v Brown,*169 AD2d 934, 935, *lv denied*77 NY2d 958; *People v Emmons,*123 AD2d 475, 476, *lv denied*69 NY2d 827).

The court did not abuse its discretion in granting the People’s motion to consolidate the two indictments, one of which related to a robbery at a K-Mart store in the City of Buffalo and the other of which related to an attempted robbery three weeks later at a Wal-Mart store in the Town of Amherst. The offenses in the indictments were joinable under CPL 200.20 (2) (c), and defendant did not show good cause why the indictments should be tried separately *(see,*CPL 200.20 [3]). Defendant failed to establish that there was substantially more proof against him on one set of charges and that it was likely that the jury would be unable to consider separately the proof as it related to each offense *(see,*CPL 200.20 [3] [a]), nor did defendant make a showing that he had “both important testimony to give concerning one [offense] and a genuine need to refrain from testifying on the other” (CPL 200.20 [3] [b]; *see, People v Lane,*56 NY2d 1, 5; *People v Reed,*212 AD2d 962, *lv denied*86 NY2d 739). Because defendant did not offer an alibi defense and this case does not present a “ ‘close question of identity’ ”, the court did not err in denying defendant’s request for an expanded identification charge *(People v Perez,*77 NY2d 928, 929; *see, People v Knight,*87 NY2d 873). Finally, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. “The mere fact that defendant was ultimately sentenced to a term of incarceration greater than that offered as a part of the plea bargain does not render his sentence harsh or excessive” *(People v Bradley*[appeal No. 1], 184 AD2d 1041, *lv denied*80 NY2d *1042927). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Rogowski, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2
151 Farmington Ave., REAG
Hartford, CT 06156
[Aetna Logo]


Brennan Hinkle
VP, Compensation
Aetna HR
Office: 860-273-6978
Fax: 860-902-7702




To:  Rick Jelinek


Date:  March 7, 2017


From:  Brennan Hinkle


Subject:  Amendment to Employment Letter


The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the agreement we have reached regarding the definition of “Good Reason” set forth in the employment letter to you from the Aetna Inc. dated October 14, 2015.  
We have agreed that the period during which you may elect to exercise your right to terminate your employment for “Good Reason” due to failure to close the Humana Inc. acquisition shall be extended from 60 days following the event constituting “Good Reason” to 180 days following the event constituting “Good Reason.”   All other provisions of the employment letter shall remain in effect.




	
				
	Agreed,    
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Brennan Hinkle
	 
	/s/ Rick Jelinek 

	Brennan Hinkle
	 
	Rick Jelinek
##### 



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 of Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended May 1, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Peter G. Michielutti, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. June 9, 2004
    
    /s/ Peter G. MichieluttiPeter G. MichieluttiExecutive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated March 22, 2010(except for Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, as to which
the date is August 17, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report ofPolymer
Group, Inc.on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2010. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of Polymer Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160066, effective June 18, 2009), Form S-3/A, Amendment
No.2 (File No. 333-145138, effective November 02, 2007), Form S-8 (File No. 333-131156, effective January 20, 2006),
Form S-8 (File No. 333-160067, effective June 18, 2009), and Form S-8 (File No. 333-121252, effective
December 14, 2004).

/s/ GRANT
THORNTON LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
August 17, 2010

---



QuickLinks
II 

Calendar No. 402 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3220 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

MAY 16, 2012 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 170 Evergreen Square SW in Pine City, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post 

Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MASTER SERGEANT DANIEL L. FEDDER POST 

4 OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 170 Evergreen Square SW in 

7 Pine City, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as 

8 the ‘‘Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post Office’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3220 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Master Sergeant Dan5 iel L. Fedder Post Office’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 402 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3220 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostDaniel L. Fedder Post Office’’. in Pine City, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Master Sergeant al Service located at 170 Evergreen Square SW 

MAY 16, 2012 

Reported without amendment 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The
Board of Directors
Cecil Bancorp, Inc.
Elkton, Maryland

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Numbers 333-35120 on Form S-3 and 033-81374 on
Form S-8 of Cecil Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries (Cecil Bancorp) of our report dated January 31, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Cecil Bancorp as
of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the
December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cecil Bancorp.



Baltimore,
Maryland
March 28, 2003

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>  5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      51,107,042
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  994,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            52,796,691
<PP&E>                                       1,505,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                 476,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,664,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,686,340
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,446
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,949,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,664,171
<SALES>                                      1,299,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,299,420
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,881,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,006,479)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,006,479)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,006,479)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1



I, Nicholas J. Benson, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sunterra Corporation;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared;



b. evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and



c. disclosed in this report
any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The
registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control of financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:



a. all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control of financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/    NICHOLAS J. BENSON
|                         



Dated: May 10, 2004
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### McLaughlin v. McLaughlin

June 4, 1985

Case No. (Chancery) 4879

By JUDGE EDWARD W. HANSON, JR.

I have reviewed the transcript of the proceedings, the recommendations of the Commissioner in Chancery, the exceptions filed by each counsel, and have considered the arguments made by counsel on May 31, 1985.

With regard to the sole exception filed by Mr. Wright, I am of the opinion that the language of § 20-107.3(G) is controlling. That code provision states: "No part of any monetary award based on the value of pension or retirement benefits, whether vested or nonvested, shall become effective until the party against whom such award is made *actually begins to receive such benefits."*The obligation to pay the funds to the complainant does not attach until the funds are actually received by the defendant. The death of the defendant would halt funds received by him, no funds would be received by his estate, and therefore no charge can be made against his estate. Accordingly, the exception is sustained.

With regard to the exceptions filed by Mr. Catón, I will address each one in numerical order:

1. The finding of the Commissioner, that the complainant deserted the defendant, is well supported by the evidence. As the Commissioner was in the best position to judge the appearance and credibility of the witnesses, his recommendation will be accorded the proper weight. The exception is denied.

2. Denied, in accordance with my ruling above.

*2073. The award of child support will be increased to $300.00 per month per child.

4. The exception is denied.

5. Section 20-107.3(F) states: "The court shall determine the amount of any such monetary award. . . ." The language of this statute prohibits a percentage award and makes it mandatory that the court fix a set amount to be awarded. The amount recommended by the commissioner and the schedule of payments is reasonable. I know of no authority for the awarding of interest. The exception is denied.
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WILSONS THE LEATHER EXPERTS INC.
  I, Joel N. Waller, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Wilsons The LeatherExperts Inc., certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Wilsons TheLeather Experts Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   June 9, 2004 /s/ Joel N. Waller   Joel N. Waller Chairman and Chief Executive Officer