alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Randi COLLOTTA and Christopher Collotta, Defendants.

No. 07 Cr. 0143(VM).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

June 16, 2008.

*DECISION AND ORDER*

VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge.

Defendant Randi Collotta (“Collotta”) was convicted following a guilty plea before the Court of insider trading and fraud in violation of the federal securities laws. The stipulated Sentencing Guidelines range for her offenses was 12 to 18 months imprisonment. The Court granted Collot-ta a substantial variance from the Guidelines range. It sentenced her to four years’ probation, including six months of home confinement and 60 days of intermittent confinement during nights, weekends or other periods of time to be arranged by mutual agreement with the Bureau of Prisons. This sentence reflected the Court’s recognition of the unique circumstances presented by Collotta’s case, in particular the extraordinary family hardship any long term incarceration may cause to Collotta’s husband and co-defendant, Christopher Collotta, who suffers from a combination of severe illnesses and needs constant medical care and personal attention. But the Court also took into consideration the seriousness of Collotta’s offenses, and deter*585mined that some period of incarceration was necessary to adequately reflect other proper objectives of sentencing.

Collotta now moves for a modification of the conditions of probation to do away with the 60 days of incarceration and instead permit her to serve 60 more days of home confinement. The Government has opposed the application. For the reasons stated below, Collotta’s request is DENIED.

The conditions of probation may be modified pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3563(c) upon a sufficient showing of the supporting conditions that prevailed at the time probation was initially imposed, and ordinarily may be warranted only “to account for new or unforeseen circumstances.” *United States v. Lussier,*104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir.1997). Collotta presents nothing new or unforeseen to justify the modification she seeks. The Court fully took into account Collotta’s need to care for her husband. It considered, and remains persuaded, that given the four-year period which Collotta has been granted to comply with the intermittent incarceration, the ample flexibility the Court allowed for Col-lotta to schedule the days of custody with the BOP during that time, and the availability of other family members to assist with the care of her husband during Col-lotta’s absence, the imprisonment condition should present no significant hardship for Collotta to fulfill.

*ORDER*

For the reasons stated above, the request of defendant Randi Collotta to modify the conditions of her probation is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                    THRIFT MANAGEMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

          EXHIBIT 11 -- STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


The following table presents the computation of basic and diluted losses per
share:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended                  Nine Months Ended
                                               -----------------------------       -----------------------------
                                               September 24,   September 26,       September 24,   September 26,
                                                   2000            1999                2000            1999
                                               -------------   -------------       -------------   -------------
<S>                                             <C>            <C>                  <C>            <C>
     Numerator:
Net (loss)                                      $  (505,152)   $  (196,235)         $(1,465,434)   $  (334,449)
                                                -----------    -----------          -----------    -----------

     Denominator:
Denominator for basic loss per
share--weighted-average shares                    2,547,210      2,191,480            2,465,710      2,191,480

Effect of dilutive securities:
  Stock options                                          --        191,499                   --        191,499
                                                -----------    -----------          -----------    -----------
Denominator for diluted loss per share            2,547,210      2,382,979            2,465,710      2,382,979
                                                ===========    ===========          ===========    ===========

    (Loss) per share:
Basic                                           $     (0.20)   $     (0.09)         $     (0.59)   $     (0.15)
                                                ===========    ===========          ===========    ===========
Diluted                                         $     (0.20)   $     (0.08)         $     (0.59)   $     (0.14)
                                                ===========    ===========          ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 of Closure Medical Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Benny Ward, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial 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, that, to my knowledge:



(1) 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. (s) 78m(a) or (s) 78o(d)); and



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



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|BENNY WARD                                           
|Benny Ward                                           
|Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|May 10, 2004
TYRONE L. SMITH
,
Petitioner,

v.

DIANE ANDREWS, UNION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
, Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIR ES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4352

Opinion filed March 16, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Tyrone L. Smith, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, a nd Randall L. Page, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits

.

RAY
, BILBREY , and JAY , JJ.
, CONCUR.
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 Distric t, 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, Atto rney 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 t he 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 Idaho2

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 dis cretion.

Therefore, Murillo ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21
 
                              Polymer Group, Inc.
              Subsidiaries of Polymer Group, Inc., as of 3/26/99
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Jurisdiction of
Subsidiary                                                  Incorporation
----------                                            --------------------------
<S>                                                   <C>
PGI Polymer, Inc..................................... Delaware
Chicopee Holdings, Inc............................... Delaware
Chicopee, Inc........................................ Delaware
Chicopee Holdings B.V................................ The Netherlands, Delaware*
Chicopee, B.V........................................ The Netherlands
FiberTech Group, Inc................................. Delaware
Technetics Group, Inc................................ Delaware
Fibergol Corporation................................. Delaware
Bonlam S.A. de C.V................................... Mexico
Fabrene Group, Inc................................... Canada
Fabrene Inc.......................................... Canada
Fabrene Corp......................................... Delaware
Fabrene L.L.C........................................ Delaware
PNA Corp............................................. North Carolina
FNA Polymer Corp..................................... North Carolina
FNA Acquisition, Inc................................. Delaware
DT Acquisition Inc................................... Canada
Loretex Corporation.................................. New York
Dominion Textile (USA) Inc........................... Delaware
Dominion Textile Mauritius........................... Mauritius
Dominion Textile France S.A.......................... France
Nordlys S.A.......................................... France
Nordlys UK Ltd....................................... United Kingdom
Geca Tapes B.V....................................... The Netherlands
Albuma S.A........................................... France
DomTex Industries Inc................................ New York
Poly-Bond Inc........................................ Delaware
3427790 Canada Limited............................... Canada
FabPro Oriented Polymers, Inc........................ Delaware
PenTech Builders..................................... Canada
PGI Nonwovens (Mauritius)............................ Mauritius
Vateks Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S................. Turkey
</TABLE>
 
* Pursuant to a certificate of domestication filed with the Secretary of State
of Delaware on September 19, 1996, this subsidiary was incorporated in the
State of Delaware under the name Chicopee Holdings (Netherlands) B.V.
Corporation.
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 3, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael M. Searles, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ MICHAEL M. SEARLES  **Michael M. Searles,**
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 7, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Open Mobile Alliance (“OMA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Cisco Systems, Inc., Seattle, WA; Mind Reader, Hangzhou City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Itron, Inc. Fort Worth, TX; and NewNet Communication Technologies, Inc., Bedford, NS, CANADA have been added as parties to this venture.                

Also, Anritsu Ltd., Bedfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM has withdrawn as a party to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OMA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 18, 1998, OMA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 31, 1998 (63 FR 72333).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 26, 2017. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 6, 2017 (82 FR 12639).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2017-21744 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 10.111(a)

                        TERMINATION AND RELEASE AGREEMENT



     This Termination and Release  Agreement made this ____ day of May, 2000, by
and  between  Play Co.  Toys &  Entertainment  Corp.  ("Play  Co."),  a Delaware
corporation,  having its principal place of business at 550 Rancheros Drive, San
Marcos,  California 92069 and ZD Group, LLC ("ZD"), a New York Limited Liability
Company,  having an address at 1385  Broadway,  Suite  814,  New York,  New York
10018.

                                R E C I T A L S:

     WHEREAS,  on November  11, 1998 the parties  hereto  entered into a certain
Agreement providing,  among other things, for the issuance of a Letter of Credit
upon the  application  of ZD for the  benefit  of Play  Co.  to  secure  certain
obligations  of Play Co. and which  provided  further  that Play Co. would pay a
certain defined "Guaranty Fee" (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS,  the parties desire to resolve  questions  between them concerning
the amount of the  Guaranty  Fee and the payment  thereof and to  terminate  the
Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed:

     1. Play Co. shall pay to ZD the sum of $500,000.00 in full  satisfaction of
any and all obligations to ZD for the Guaranty Fee.

     2. Effective  upon such payment,  ZD's  obligations  under the Agreement to
guaranty  the  credit of Play Co.  and to  provide  letters  of credit  shall be
terminated  and the parties  shall release be deemed to have released each other
from  any  and  all  claims,  demands  or  obligations  of any  nature,  kind or
description arising out of the Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties have set their hands and seals the day and
year first above written.


                             PLAY CO. TOYS & ENTERTAINMENT CORP.



                        By: ____________________________


                             ZD GROUP, LLC



                        By: ____________________________
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10318.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 15, 2011.

Eric Johnson, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Adam McMeen Flake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael V. Cristalli, Cristalli *&*Saggese, Las Vegas, NV, 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 **

Lee Mitchell appeals from the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of *744a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We dismiss Mitchell’s appeal.

Mitchell contends that the district court erred in calculating the Guidelines range by applying the 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6) for use of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. We are precluded from reaching the merits of Mitchell’s claim by a valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nunez,*228 F.3d 956, 958-59 (9th Cir.2000).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
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, Form S-8 No. 333-158758 and Form S-8 No. 333-179819), pertaining to the TESSCO Technologies Incorporated Second Amended and Restated 1994 Stock and Incentive Plan and Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan, of our reports dated May 31, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of TESSCO Technologies Incorporated and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of TESSCO Technologies Incorporated and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 1, 2012.

















Baltimore, Maryland


May 31, 2012
#### Lolita M. Sgromo et al., Respondents, v St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center et al., Defendants, and CNY Obstetrics and Gynecology, P. C., et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[669 NYS2d 113]

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Matter of Kolasz v Levitt,*63 AD2d 777, 779). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mor*1098due, J.—Disqualify Law Firm.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Polymer Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis E. Norman, Chief Financial 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, that to my knowledge:



Date: August 17, 2010

/s/ DENNIS E. NORMAN Dennis E. Norman Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 26, 2017.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis*                     (Brendan S. Murrin, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                

                    1.                     *Tradition Bancshares, Inc., Edina, Minnesota;*                     acquire 24 percent of the voting shares of Rock Creek Advisors, LLC, Rapid City, South Dakota, and thereby engage in investment advisory services pursuant to section 225.28(b)(6).                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 6, 2017.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-22138 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P