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

No. 07-2661.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2008.

Filed: May 5, 2008.

Travis D. Poindexter, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.

Bruce E. Clark, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (John F. Wood, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

*528[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

John Davis challenges the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). On appeal, he argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it failed to consider a proposed amendment to the Guidelines that would have lowered the advisory Guidelines imprisonment range. Alternatively, Davis urges this court to remand his case for resentencing so the district court can apply the amendment, which became effective after his sentencing.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly used the Guidelines that were in effect at the time of sentencing. *See*U.S.S.G. § IB 1.11 (court generally should use Guidelines in effect on date of sentencing); *United States v. Ingram,*501 F.8d 963, 968 (8th Cir.2007) (district court’s application of Guidelines reviewed de novo), *petition for cert, filed,*(U.S. Dec. 5, 2007) (No. 07-8093).

We also believe that Davis’s sentence is not unreasonable. *See Rita v. United States*, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (approving appellate presumption of reasonableness); *United States v. Harris,*493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir.2007) (applying presumption of reasonableness), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1263, 170 L.Ed.2d 111 (2008); *see also United States v. TurbidesLeonardo,*468 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir.2006) (it is rare for Guidelines sentence to be greater than necessary to achieve statutory goals of sentencing), *cert.*denied,-U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 3064, 168 L.Ed.2d 773 (2007).

Finally, we decline to remand this case for resentencing because the Sentencing Commission has not designated the amendment at issue as one that may be applied retroactively. *See United States v. Auman,*8 F.3d 1268, 1272 (8th Cir.1993) (amendment to Guidelines may not be applied retroactively unless Sentencing Commission has expressly designated it as one that may be applied retroactively).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### Shirley Gallmeyer, as Administratrix of the Estate of Dorothy A. Kameck, Deceased, Appellant, v Michael Sullivan et al., Defendants, and John Noe, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[665 NYS2d 499]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Same Memorandum as in *Gallmeyer v Sullivan*([appeal No. 1] 245 AD2d 1024 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Malpractice.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Confidential portions of this document indicated by ***** have been omitted and filed

separately with the Commission



Exhibit 10.32



December 22, 2003



Mr. Gary Ihrke

V.P. Operations

Featherlite Trailers

P O Box 320

Cresco IA 52136



Dear Gary,



This letter will serve as confirmation of our agreement completed today. Alcoa has purchased, with your authorization, *****
pounds of aluminum for your extrusion needs from March through July 2004. The extrusions will be purchased and delivered from our Tifton plant at a base price of $***** per pound on solid shapes, and $***** per pound on hollow shapes. As per our
previous agreements, any side panels will require a ***** adder. Any other adders will apply consistent with our current agreements. All prices include delivery to Cresco, Iowa. The prices and tonnage stated above are firm, as metal has been secured
to cover this contract. Alcoa also agreed to drop the energy surcharge from our AECP plants for 2004 contracts.



Gary, we have provided a place for your signature to confirm our mutual commitment. We look forward to maintaining our role as your primary source for
quality extrusions.



Your truly,



|                                                            |  |  |  |                 
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------
|                                                            |  | 
|/s/ Herb Grubbs                                             |  |  |  | /s/ Gary Ihrke  
|                                                            |  |  |  |                 
|Regional Sales Manager                                      |  |  |  | VP Operations   
|                                                            |  | 
|CC:  Margaret Loper Benny Register Craig Lepa / Featherlite |  |  |  | Featherlite, Inc
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3193 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3193

  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 
South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``Alto Lee 
                Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2009

Mr. Rooney (for himself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Mack, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. 
   Miller of Florida, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Klein of 
 Florida, and Mr. Hastings of Florida) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 
South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``Alto Lee 
                Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse under construction at 101 South United 
States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Alto Lee Adams, 
Sr., United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Green, Defendant, and Dave Green Auto World, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[858 NYS2d 629]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Stephen R. Sirkin, J.), rendered February 28, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant Dave Green Auto World, Inc., upon a plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the second degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (nine counts), and making or delivering a fraudulent sales tax report (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in *People v Green*(52 AD3d 1263 [2008]). Present—Scudder, P.J, Hurlbutt, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3193 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3193

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 
South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``Alto Lee 
                Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse under construction at 101 South United 
States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Alto Lee Adams, 
Sr., United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3193

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 
South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``Alto Lee 
                Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.
```
Exhibit 10.8


 


BIONDVAX
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.


 


_______,
_________


 


ATT.





	Registrations Company of Bank Leumi le – Israel Ltd.	This document is
valuable









 


Dear
sirs,


 


Re:
Allotment letter no.         of       option documents
(series            ) of Biondvax Pharmaceuticals Ltd.


 


Hereby allocated to your name are  ________ option documents (series _____) of of Biondvax Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from
no. _______ to no. ______ in accordance with the provision in the Company's shelf prospectus published on _____
_____.


 


The
allocated securities will be registered to your name in the Company's securities registry.


 


This
allotment letter will remain in force as long as you are not given oprion document certificates (series _____) in return for submiting
this letter to the Company.


 


This
allotment letter can be splitted, assigned or waived in accordance with the provisions of the shelf prospectus.


 


Sincerely,


 


Biondvax
Pharmaceuticals Ltd.


 


Advocate's
Certification


I,
the undersigned, Adv. _________, hereby certify that this allotment letter was dully signed by the authorized Company
signtories of Biondvax Pharmaceuticals Ltd.


 


______________


Adv.
__________
#### Esther B. Wallace, Plaintiff, v City of New York, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant. Naclerio Contracting Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant; Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 469]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered October 3, 1996, which denied its motion to dismiss the amended third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated May 6, 1997, as, upon granting its motion, in effect, to reargue the motion to dismiss, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered October 3, 1996, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 6, 1997, made upon reargument; and it is further,

*443Ordered that the order dated May 6,1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, documentary evidence submitted in support of its motion to dismiss does not preclude a finding that it could be held liable under one of the theories set forth in the third-party complaint. The Supreme Court, therefore, properly concluded that the third-party complaint states a cause of action (see, *Becker v Schwartz,*46 NY2d 401, 408; *Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

Featherlite, Inc.

We consent to the use in Registration Statement No. 333-90860 and No. 333-75285
of Featherlite, Inc. (the Company) on Form S-8 of our report dated February 28,
2003 (April 14, 2003 as to Notes 2 and 9), relating to the consolidated
financial statements of the Company as of and for the year ended December 31,
2002 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to certain matters raising substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern), appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 15, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

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


The undersigned, Steve Khan, Chief Executive Officer and Robert Hemmerling,
Chief Financial Officer, of Investment Associates Inc., hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   the quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Investment  Associates Inc. for the
     period  ended  June  30,  2005  (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 Investment
     Associates Inc.




Dated August 8, 2005                                 /s/ Steve Khan
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Steve Khan,
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


Dated August 8, 2005                                 /s/ Robert Hemmerling
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Robert Hemmerling,
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
#### Dai Mang Kim, Appellant, v Hwak Yung Kim et al., Defendants.

[987 NYS2d 418]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), entered April 16, 2013, which denied his unopposed motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 and to restore the action to the active calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In a certification order dated July 9, 2012, the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days, and warned that the action would be deemed dismissed without further order of the court if the plaintiff failed to comply with that directive. This order had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 *(see Bhatti v Empire Realty Assoc., Inc.,*101 AD3d 1066, 1067 [2012]; *Stallone v Richard,*95 AD3d 875, 876 [2012]; *Anjum v Karagoz,*48 AD3d 605 [2008]). Counsel for the plaintiff signed the order, acknowledging receipt thereof. Having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiff was required either to serve and file a timely note of issue or to move pursuant to CPLR 2004, prior to the default date, to extend the time within which to serve and file a note of issue *(see Fenner v County of Nassau,*80 AD3d 555 [2011]; *Sharpe v Osorio,*21 AD3d 467, 468 [2005]). The plaintiff did neither. Accordingly, the action was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 *(see Bhatti v Empire Realty Assoc., Inc.,*101 AD3d at 1067).

To vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for his failure to comply with the certification order and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action *(see*CPLR 3216 [e]; *Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co.,*89 NY2d 499, 503 [1997]; *Bhatti v Empire Realty Assoc., Inc.,*101 AD3d at 1067; *Stallone v Richard,*95 AD3d at 876). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to excuse the default based on the uncorroborated claim of law office failure proffered by the plaintiffs attorney *(see*CPLR 2005; *Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v Charles,*103 AD3d 683, 684 [2013]; *Glukhman v Bay 49th St. Condominium, LLC,*100 AD3d 594, 595 [2012]; *Star Indus., Inc. v Innovative Beverages, Inc.,*55 AD3d 903, 904 [2008]). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to submit any medical evidence demonstrating that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a *662result of the subject motor vehicle accident *(see Louis v MTA Long Is. Bus Co.,*44 AD3d 628 [2007]; *Rezene v Williams,*22 AD3d 656, 657 [2005]; *Sharpe v Osorio,*21 AD3d at 468).

Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 and to restore the action to the active calendar was properly denied.

Mastro, J.E, Hall, Lott, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Ron Carte, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Zenex International, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.   Date: March 14, 2006     /s/ Ron Carte   Signature  Title: Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50020 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. GUADALUPE SOTO-CERVANTES, also known as Jose Morales Estrada Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-1482-ALL
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe Soto-Cervantes raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 4, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-50020

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.1


 


	SNW JB Properties	July 8, 2014       
	P.O. Box 1130	 
	Borger, TX 79008-1130	 


 


Att: Bart Boren, Partner


 


Dear Mr. Boren:


 


This is to confirm that
we are entering into a Second Amendment to a Master Lease with Simon Property Group LP. Pursuant to the Second Amendment, Simon
is requiring us to post a one-year letter of credit or letters of credit totaling $2,700,000. It is anticipated that you will post
a letter of credit for $1,350,000 and that Thomas Arnost has agreed to post an additional letter of credit for $1,350,000. The
Board of Directors has approved and you have agreed to post a $1,350,000 letter of credit and in consideration the Board has approved
the following compensation to be paid to you and to Mr. Arnost:


 


		1.	Each person or entity shall receive interest of 8% per annum payable quarterly in arrears in cash
or restricted Common Stock based upon the average closing sale price of the corporation’s Common Stock on the OTCQB for the
20 preceding days prior to the interest payment date. (Note: Interest shall be paid in restricted Common Stock unless directed
otherwise by SNW JB Properties.);



 


		2.	Each person or entity shall have the right to assign the underlying benefit of the letter of credit
to the Corporation in whole, but not in part at a conversion price of $1.00 per share;



 


		3.	Each person or entity shall receive options to purchase 125,000 shares of Common Stock quarterly
in advance of each date that the letter of credit is outstanding, it being understood that the first grant date shall be on the
execution date of the Second Amendment. Each option granted shall have a term of five years, exercisable from the date of issuance
with an exercise price equal to the average of the closing sales price of the Corporation’s Common Stock on the OTCQB for
the 20 preceding days.



 


It is understood and agreed
upon that your letter of credit will be backed by the availability to draw down upon the Aspire Capital line of credit, in the
event that Simon Property draws down on your line of credit, to make you whole.


 


	 	MOBIQUITY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
	 	 
	 	By: /s/ Dean L. Julia                               
	 	        Dean L. Julia, Co-CEO


 


Agreed to and accepted by:


 


SNW JB Properties


 


/s/ Bart Boren, Partner