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

No. 07-60646

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 2008.

*412Pshon Barrett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Missisippi, Jackson, MS, Jay Tresca Golden, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ellen Maier Allred, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Freddie Leon Simmons appeals the sixty-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release for a prior conviction for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Simmons argues that the district court failed properly to weigh the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), rendering his sentence unreasonable, and failed adequately to explain its decision to depart from the advisory guideline range of three to nine months up to the statutory maximum sentence.

This Court has held that once a defendant is found to have violated a condition of supervised release, the district court must consider the Section 3553(a) factors as part of its determination of the proper sentence. *United States v. Gonzalez,*250 F.3d 923, 929 (5th Cir.2001). It is not necessary for the factors to be mentioned explicitly on the record, and evidence of implicit consideration will suffice. *Id.*at 930. We find some implicit reference to the factors on this record. For example, after Simmons and his counsel both tried to characterize his almost three-year failure to report to his probation officer as relatively insignificant, the trial court expressed concern about the length of time Simmons had failed to comply with his reporting obligation. Because there is no contrary indication in the record, we are satisfied that the court implicitly considered several of the Section 3553(a) factors. *Id.*

The substantive reasonableness of this sentence and not just the regularity of the procedures by which it was imposed is challenged. The proper measure of reasonableness for a sentence entered after revocation of supervised release has not *413been reevaluated since the epochal decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). However, we conclude that Simmons has not shown that his sentence violated either of the possible standards of being unreasonable or *plainly*unreasonable, or being imposed as a result of procedural error. *See Gall v. United States,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Hinson,*429 F.3d 114,120 (5th Cir.2005); *Gonzalez,*250 F.3d at 925-29.

Accordingly, 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.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                        
    
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-88140, 33-88142, 33-88144, 33-88146, 33-81011,
333-37359, 333-43185, and 333-47759) of JP Foodservice, Inc. and Form S-3 
(No. 333-67553) of U.S. Foodservice (formerly JP Foodservice, Inc.) of our
report dated August 2, 1996, except as to Note 16, which is as of September 10,
1996 and except as to the pooling of interests with Valley Industries, Inc. and
with Squeri Food Service, Inc. which is as of November 14, 1996, which appears
on page F-5 of U.S. Foodservice (formerly JP Foodservice, Inc.) on Form 10-K/A-2
for the year ended June 27, 1998.     

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
    
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Baltimore, Maryland
March 1, 1999
W.
      Quillen Securities

    145
      E.
      57th
      Street,
      10th
      Fl, New
      York, NY 10022 212-223-0188, fax 212-253-4213

     

    Date:
      April 5, 2007

    


    Jared
      Taylor

    Vistula
      Communications

    


    By
      Fax: 781 356 0957

    


    Dear
      Jared, 

    


    Pursuant
      to this letter Agreement, Vistula Communications Services, Inc. (the “Company”)
      hereby engages W. Quillen Securities (“WQS”), an NASD member firm, to assist the
      Company on a best-efforts basis to raise proceeds through the Company’s issuance
      of debt and/or sale of equity in private sale(s) to institutional and/or
      qualified, high net-worth investors.

     

    As
      compensation, WQS shall be entitled to a placement agent commission equal to
      eight percent (8%) of any funds raised for the Company (the “Placement Agent’s
      Commission”) for any New Investor funds (monies raised from investors introduced
      to the Company by WQS). Such Placement Agent’s Commission shall be inclusive of
      any related commissions, fees or other payments payable to any other
      brokers/dealers or other persons legally entitled to receive commissions who,
      at
      the request of WQS, has assisted the WQS in the sale of the Company shares
      (the
“Co-Brokerage Commissions”); all of which Co-Brokerage Commissions shall be
      deducted from the WQS’ Placement Agent’s Commission otherwise payable to WQS
      hereunder.

     

    In
      addition, the Company shall issue to WQS, a five-year warrant (the “Placement
      Agent’s Warrant”) entitling WQS to purchase two shares of Company Common Stock,
      par value $0.001, for every $1.00 of New Investor funds raised, at an exercise
      price of $1.00.

     

    If
      the
      foregoing is in accordance with your understanding of our agreement, kindly
      sign
      and return this Agreement by fax (212-253-4213), whereupon it will become a
      binding agreement between the parties in accordance with its terms.

     

    This
      agreement expires on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 5.00pm EST. 

    


    Very
      truly yours,

    
      	 	 	 	 
	W. Quillen Securities 	 	 	Signed & Accepted:
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:
              /s/ Whitney
              Quillen 	 	 	By:
              /s/ Jared P.
              Taylor
	
              
                

              

              Name:
                Whitney Quillen 

            	 	 	
              
                

              

              Name:
                Jared P. Taylor

            
	
              Title:
                President 

            	 	 	
              Title:
                Chief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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 report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    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 effect, the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  By:
    /s/ John J. DeeJohn J. DeeChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President (Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID ZEBROWSKI, a/k/a Dog, a/k/a Mad Dog, a/k/a Lewis Brady, a/k/a David E. Stewart, a/k/a Eric Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-96-41, CA-98-350) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Zebrowski, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: David Zebrowski seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and his motion seeking reconsideration. Insofar as Zebrowski raises issues in his Rule 60(b) motion concerning claims raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, we find Zebrowski did not show extraordinary circumstances warranting granting the Rule 60(b) motion filed approximately three years after the denial of his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we conclude that Zebrowski has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FLORENCIO P. VALLEJO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

GRAY, Dr., et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16713

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-02352-AWISKO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2016** 

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Florencio P. Vallejo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th

FILED

SEP 20 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Gray

because Vallejo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

Gray was deliberately indifferent to Vallejo’s serious medical needs. See Toguchi,

391 F.3d at 1057 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she

knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health); see also Lemire

v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining

that plaintiffs alleging deliberate indifference in § 1983 actions “must . . .

demonstrate that the defendants’ actions were both an actual and proximate cause

of their injuries”).

The district court properly dismissed Vallejo’s claim under the Americans

with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) because Vallejo failed to allege facts sufficient

to show that the alleged violation arose from discrimination against him because of

a disability. See Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir.

2010) (“The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate

treatment for disability.”). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vallejo’s requests

for appointment of counsel because Vallejo did not show exceptional

2 15-16713
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting

forth standard of review and exceptional circumstances requirement for

appointment of counsel).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 15-16713
Exhibit
32.2








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





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by Intermost
Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation (the “Company”) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-QA for the three months
ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”), the undersigned, Thomas Lee, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, that to the best of his
knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and




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





This
certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be
deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any
purpose whatsoever.





Date:  December
1, 2008








By:
            /s/ Thomas LeeThomas
      Lee,
              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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6596

FRANCIS CLAYTON HOOD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

OFFICER MURPHY; OFFICER LEGGETT; OFFICER

SENTIRO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-590-5-BO)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: January 20, 1998

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis Clayton Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl A. Marteney, WARD

& SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hood

v. Murphy, No. CA-94-590-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 1996). We deny Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal based on Appellant's untimely

filing and service of his informal brief. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
(December 2, 1997)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Wilson A. LaFaurie, on Behalf of Fabian Mayorga, Petitioner, v Warden, New York City Department of Corrections, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 22]

—Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to readmit Fabian Mayorga to bail upon Queens County Indictment No. 423-97.

Adjudged that the writ is sustained, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of reinstating the bail previously set and posted on Queens County Indictment No. 423-97 under the same conditions as were in existence at the time that Fabian Mayorga was remanded on November 25, 1997.

The District Attorney of Queens County, has failed to appear on the application. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


           I, Edward T. Whelan, Chief Executive Officer of Military Resale
Group, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 of the Registrant, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

       (1)    The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



                                           By: /s/ Edward T. Whelan
                                               ------------------------------
                                               Name: Edward T. Whelan
                                               Title: Chief Executive Officer

June 2, 2004


-------------------------

This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Military Resale Group,  Inc. and will be retained by Military Resale
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Exhibit 21 - Subsidiaries

The following is a list of all subsidiaries of the Company:



|                           |  |                              |  |                     |  
|-------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ------------------- | -
|Name of Subsidiary         |  | Jurisdictionof Incorporation |  | OwnershipPercentage |  
|Progressive Concepts, Inc. |  | Texas                        |  | 100                 | %
|Teletouch Licenses, Inc.   |  | Delaware                     |  | 100                 | %
|Visao Systems, Inc.        |  | Delaware                     |  | 100                 | %
|TLL Georgia, Inc.          |  | Delaware                     |  | 100                 | %
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Panel.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to encourage feedback for the Section 809 Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations (hereafter “the Panel”). The Panel meets on a monthly basis and will provide a final report to the Secretary of Defense and Congress in 2019. The agendas, meeting times, and contact information are posted on the Panel Web site:                         *http://www.section809panel.org.*                         Public feedback can be submitted in the “Contact Us” section of the Web site as either general comments or specific recommendations.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Shayne L. Martin, Section 809 Panel, 1400 Key Blvd., Suite 210, Arlington, VA 22209, email:                         *shayne.martin@dau.mil,*                         phone: 703-571-2989.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92) required the Secretary of Defense to establish “an advisory panel on streamlining acquisition regulations.” The Panel was seated on August 12, 2016. By Statute, the Panel is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix). Public information, including opportunities for input, is posted and periodically updated at                     *http://www.section809panel.org.*

Dated: October 18, 2017.

Aaron Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2017-22987 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
**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
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Professional Lease Management Income Fund
I, L.L.C., (the “Fund”), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned, the President of the Manager and of the Fund, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
 
 (1)  the
Report of the Fund filed today 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 Fund.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
James A. Coyne
 James A.
Coyne
 President
of PLM Financial Services, Inc.
 March
29,2005