alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Robert EVANS, Sr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jequita Dumbar Evans, a.k.a. Quilla, a.k.a. Quita, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 07-10622, 07-10821.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 2, 2008.

Peggy Morris Ronca, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James T. Miller, Corse, Bell *&*Miller, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG *, Judge.

*

 Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Robert Evans, Sr. (“Ronald”), appeals his sentence and conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise of crack cocaine distribution, trafficking in contraband cigarettes, discharging pollutants, unlawfully procuring transportation of farm laborers, structuring currency transactions, and witness tampering. Ronald’s co-defendant, Jequita Dumbar Evans, appeals her conviction for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and structuring currency transactions.

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that all of the appellants’ arguments in support of their appeals of their convictions are meritless. *927First, the appellants fail to demonstrate that the district court’s denial of the motion to sever the charges resulted in “compelling prejudice against which the district court could offer no protection.” *United States v. Walser,*3 F.3d 380, 385 (11th Cir.1993). Second, Ronald asserts that the district court abused its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury to identify which five persons Ronald organized or supervised while engaging in the continuing criminal enterprise. This argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Moorman,*944 F.2d 801, 803 (11th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (holding that district court is not required to instruct a jury to unanimously agree on the identity of the five persons the defendant supervised). Finally, we find no error in any of the district court’s evidentiary decisions or jury instructions. As such, the appellants’ additional arguments relating to them convictions are meritless.

Ronald also appeals his sentence. He claims that the district court erred when it considered the 100:1 crack-to-powder ratio in the sentencing guidelines as mandatory. In light of intervening Supreme Court precedent, we hold that the district court erred when it applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion by refusing to consider the crack-powder disparity in sentencing Ronald. We therefore vacate Ronald’s sentence and remand for the limited purpose of resentencing in light of *Kimbrough v. United States,*552 U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007).

AFFIRMED IN PART; Appellant Ronald Evans’ sentence is VACATED AND REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3161 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3161

  To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for an additional 
            judgeship for the western district of Michigan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2009

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for an additional 
            judgeship for the western district of Michigan.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP.

    (a) Additional Judgeship.--The item relating to Michigan in the 
table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by striking

        ``Western..............................................     4''
    and inserting

        ``Western..............................................    5''.
    (b) Official Duty Station.--The official duty station of the 
individual appointed to the judgeship created by the amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall be Marquette, Michigan.
                                 <all>
```
#### Joanne Torchia et al., Respondents, v Richard C. Garvey, M.D., et al., Appellants.

[987 NYS2d 62]

*427Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered January 10, 2012, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend their claim for medical malpractice and to add a claim for lack of Informed consent, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 4, 2013, which denied defendants’ motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Plaintiffs failed to proffer an expert medical affidavit of merit in support of their proposed claim for medical malpractice, which stemmed from a prior surgery separate and distinct from the one originally pleaded *(see e.g. Lopez v City of New York,*80 AD3d 432, 433 [1st Dept 2011]; *compare Gambles v Davis,*32 AD3d 224, 225 [1st Dept 2006]).

In any event, the proposed amendments are untimely. Although the court sua sponte determined that the continuous treatment doctrine applied to the medical malpractice claim, the record contains no evidence, such as medical records or an affidavit attesting to dates of treatment, that would support such a finding. Further, the continuous treatment doctrine cannot apply to the derivative claim of plaintiff husband *(see Otero v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y.,*240 AD2d 279 [1st Dept 1997]). Nor did the proposed claim of lack of informed consent relate back to the original claim for medical malpractice *(see Raymond v Ryken,*98 AD3d 1265 [4th Dept 2012]; *Pagan v Quinn,*51 AD3d 1299, 1301 [3d Dept 2008]; *Jolly v Russell,*203 AD2d 527, 529 [2d Dept 1994]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**931 CA 15-00357**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

DEANNA ZEGARELLI-PECHEONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF THOMAS ZEGARELLI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NEW HARTFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LAW FIRM OF FRANK W. MILLER, EAST SYRACUSE (FRANK W. MILLER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Samuel D. Hester, J.), entered June 10, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying in part its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant’s employees questioned plaintiff’s son during an investigation of an incident that had occurred a few days earlier during a football game on school grounds. Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action alleging, among other things, that defendant’s confinement of her son to an administrator’s office and the nurse’s office during the investigation constituted false imprisonment. In her bill of particulars, plaintiff alleged in further detail that her son’s confinement was for an unreasonable and excessive period of time, during which he was threatened, verbally harassed, and given misleading information, with the result that he made a false admission of wrongdoing. Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for false imprisonment but granted the motion with respect to two other causes of action. We affirm.

To establish a cause of action for false imprisonment, a “plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant intended to confine him, (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged” ( Broughton v State of New York
, 37 NY2d 451, 456, cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg , 423 US 929). Defendant contends that the court erred in denying that part of its motion seeking dismissal of the cause of action for false imprisonment**-2- 931 CA 15-00357** 

inasmuch as defendant’s confinement of plaintiff’s son was privileged. We reject that contention. A confinement such as the one at issue herein is privileged only if it is reasonable under the circumstances, including its duration and manner ( see Barrett v Watkins , 82 AD3d 1569, 1571-1572; see generally Sindle v New York City Tr. Auth. , 33 NY2d 293, 297). We conclude on this record that defendant’s submissions failed to establish that its confinement of plaintiff’s son was reasonable as a matter of law ( see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562; Peters v Rome City Sch. Dist. [appeal No. 2], 298 AD2d 864, 865).

Entered: October 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 14.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-85090, 333-108896, 333-110486 333-131315, 333-140174 and 333-141640 on Form
F-3, and Nos. 33-80947, 333-06482, 333-11720, 333-83204, 333-107943 333-117565,
333-138837 on Form S-8, of our report dated February 7, 2007, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Tower Semiconductor Ltd., appearing in this
Report on Form 20-F of Tower Semiconductor Ltd.

Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A Member Firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
June 25, 2007
```
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40577

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

FERNANDO CORTES

- PONCE ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 690

Filed: October 2, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Patrick H. Owen , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve years, with five years determinate , for trafficking in cocaine

, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Fernando Cortes

- Ponce pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine, Idaho Code
§ § 37

- 2732B(a)(2) and 18

- 204 . The district court sentenced Cortes

- Ponce to a unified term of
twelve yea rs, with five years determinate . Cortes

- Ponce appeals, contending his sentence is

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

factor s to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 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 reviewing2 the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Ap plying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Cortes

- Ponce ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3348 

To amend the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 

to extend the interoperable emergency communications grant program 

through fiscal year 2012. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2009 

Mr. CAO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 to extend the interoperable emergency 

communications grant program through fiscal year 2012. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION. 

4 Section 3006(a)(2) of the Digital Television Transi5 tion and Public Safety Act of 2005 is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘2010’’ and inserting ‘‘2012’’; 

7 and 

8 (2) by inserting after the period at the end the 

9 following: ‘‘The Assistant Secretary may extend, on 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3348 IH

1 a case-by-case basis, the period of performance for 

2 any investment approved under the program for a 

3 period not to exceed 2 years.’’ 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1   Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002







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 Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. ("the Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, David S. Lerner, President and Principal Executive Officer, 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 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 Company.





Dated: November 18, 2004





/s/ David S. Lerner

David S. Lerner

President and Principal Executive Officer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00433-CV

CHARLESZETTA YVONNE DELONEY,

Appellant

V.

TODD KOSCELNIK AND SON

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 367th District 

Court

of Denton County (19-3908-367)

December 10, 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Charleszetta Yvonne Deloney shall pay all of 

the costs of this proceeding, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
# Leif Erikson Day, 2017

More than a thousand years ago, explorer Leif Erikson—son of Iceland and grandson of Norway—sailed with his crew to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and perhaps even as far west as Maine. These intrepid explorers were likely the first Europeans to reach our great home, North America. On Leif Erikson Day, we celebrate their remarkable journey and the brave Viking culture that lies at the core of the New World's passion for discovery and determination to tackle unimaginable challenges.

                    Throughout our country's history, Nordic Americans have made notable contributions to our society. From the everyday to the extraordinary, Nordic accomplishments have touched every aspect of our lives. We owe our hamburgers to Danish-American Louis Lassen, and the famed St. Louis Arch to Finnish-American Eero Saarinen. Norwegian-American and cartoonist Charles M. Schulz brought us the Charlie Brown, Snoopy, and the rest of the iconic                     *Peanuts*                     comic strip, and Finnish-American John Morton signed the Declaration of Independence.                

Today, we take pride in our strong relationship with the Nordic countries. In 2016, we exported $11 billion in goods to the Nordics, and our trading partnerships in the region are only growing stronger. The Nordics are also staunch allies in the war on terrorism and are valued members of the Global Coalition to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. We share in their sorrow from suffering caused by terrorists in places like Turku, Stockholm, and Oslo. We stand together with the Nordic people in solidarity against the threat of terrorism. As we strive for peace, prosperity, and security, we will work to ensure that our relationship with the Nordic countries continues to reflect the indomitable spirit of Leif Erikson.

To honor Leif Erikson and celebrate our Nordic-American heritage, the Congress, by joint resolution (Public Law 88-566) approved on September 2, 1964, has authorized the President of the United States to proclaim October 9 of each year as “Leif Erikson Day.”

                    NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 9, 2017, as Leif Erikson Day. I call upon all Americans to celebrate the achievements and contributions of Nordic Americans to our Nation with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.                          ( print page 47952)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

[FR Doc. 2017-22424

Billing code 3295-F8-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,250)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,335)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,335)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,335)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
- 440 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports

REVEIZ v . EL-KASABY Cite as 305 Neb. 440

Elena Reveiz, appellant, v. Bassel El-Kasaby, appellee. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed April 3, 2020. No. S-19-278. Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J Russell Derr , Judge. Affirmed. Denise E. Frost, of Johnson & Mock, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant. Cathy S. Trent-Vilim, and, on brief, Stacy L. Morris and Kate Geyer Johnson, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for appellee.
Heavican , C.J., Miller

- Lerman , Cassel , Stacy, Funke , and Freudenberg , JJ. Per Curiam

. The February 19, 2019, order of the Douglas County District Court is affirmed by an equally divided court. Affirmed. Papik , J., not participating. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 05/01/2020 08:07 AM CDT
EXHIBIT 31.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                    UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RASC Series 2006-KS2 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do 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 report;

3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.

In giving the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied on information
provided  to me by  the  following  unaffiliated  parties:  U.S.  Bank  National
Association.


Date:  March 26, 2007

By:     /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
        Name: Anthony N. Renzi
        Title: Managing Director