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

No. 10-3137.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted June 1, 2011.

Decided June 6, 2011.

Michael Ferrara, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard H. Parsons, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, A. Brian Threlkeld, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Ui'bana, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Larone Price was arrested after attempting to purchase twenty kilograms of cocaine from a government informant. Price pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distidbute a controlled substance, *see*21 U.S.C. § 846, and was sentenced to 135 months’ imprisonment. He filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer, unable to identify an arguable issue to pursue, moves to withdraw. *See Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Price has not accepted our invitation to respond to counsel’s motion. *See*Cir. R. 51(b). We limit our review to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief. *See United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

Price has informed counsel that he does not wish to set aside his guilty plea, so counsel properly omits any discussion of the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. *See United States v. Knox,*287 F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir.2002).

*645Counsel first evaluates whether Price could challenge the calculation of his guidelines range, but rightly concludes that Price waived that challenge by urging the district court to adopt the probation officer’s calculations. *See United States v. Brodie,*507 F.3d 527, 531 (7th Cir.2007). Those calculations were premised on a base offense level of 34, which the government contested on grounds that Price should have been accountable for additional drugs. The district court, however, found the government’s evidence unpersuasive and ultimately adopted the probation officer’s calculations (a range of 120 to 135 months’ imprisonment, based on a total offense level of 31 and criminal history category of I).

Counsel next considers whether Price could argue that his 135-month prison sentence is substantively unreasonable, but properly rejects any such argument as frivolous. Price’s sentence is within this guidelines range and thus presumptively reasonable, *see Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 347, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); *United States v. Pulley,*601 F.3d 660, 668 (7th Cir.2010), and counsel identifies no reason to disturb that presumption. Given the district court’s careful consideration of Price’s arguments and its articulation of a within-range sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors, we have no reason to conclude that the district court abused its discretion.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
#### In the Matter of Mark Nonni, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 861]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances after two urinalysis tests resulted in positive readings for the presence of opiates. Petitioner challenges the determination of his guilt on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Included in the evidence presented at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and the testimony of two correction officers who conducted the tests. This was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see, Matter of Bonilla v Coombe,*221 AD2d 782, *lv denied*87 NY2d 807). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

*949Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SKYDANCE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a 

California limited liability company; 

SKYDANCE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a 

California limited liability company; 

GEMINI PICTURES, LLC, a California 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 v. 

KISSINGER NKOSINATHI SIBANDA, 

Esquire, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-55236 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-08145-CBM-JC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Kissinger Nkosinathi Sibanda appeals pro se the district court’s post-

* 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).

FILED

MAY 19 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-55236 

judgment order denying his motion for attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion for 

attorney’s fees. Tresóna Multimedia, LLC v. Burbank High Sch. Vocal Music 

Ass’n, 953 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sibanda’s motion 

for attorney’s fees because Sibanda is not a “prevailing party” in this action and 

otherwise failed to demonstrate he is entitled to fees. See Cadkin v. Loose, 569 

F.3d 1142, 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that, under 17 U.S.C. § 505, 

district courts may only award attorney’s fees to a party that “in fact prevailed on 

the copyright claim;” a defendant is not a prevailing party where a plaintiff is free 

to refile a copyright claim against the defendant following a voluntary dismissal of 

the complaint); F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 

1128, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a court is vested with inherent 

power to sanction litigation misconduct and stating that, “[w]ith respect to 

sanctions, a district court’s factual findings are given great deference”).

Sibanda’s requests for oral argument and remand to a different district judge, 

set forth in the opening brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00491-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.-P.C.T., A 

CHILD

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

FROM THE 360TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On April 24, 2013, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as 

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P. 

38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless 

appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within 

ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

Because appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. 

DELIVERED: June 20, 2013

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul GARCIA-NEVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50712

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Raul Garcia-Nevarez (Garcia) appeals from his four concurrent 24-month sentences imposed following his convictions for two counts of conspiring to illegally export defense articles and two counts of aiding and abetting the illegal export of defense articles; his sentences each fall well below the applicable guidelines range.

Garcia asserts no procedural error. He claims only that the sentence is substantively unreasonably long in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We ordinarily review sentences for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586,169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). However, because Garcia did not object to the unreasonableness of his sentence in the district court, our review is for plain error only. *See United States v. Peltier,*505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.2007). We decline his invitation to engage in impermissible “substantive second-guessing of the sentencing court.” *United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 767 (5th Cir.2008).

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.
EXHIBIT 99.3

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

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Imagis Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Iain Drummond,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/Iain Drummond
Iain Drummond
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kenneth Hilowitz certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TrimFast
Group, Inc.;

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

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

         4. Both myself and the chief executive officer are responsible for
establishing and maintaining 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 to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

                  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. Based on our most recent evaluation:

                  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

         6. We have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls and in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

<PAGE>



Date: March 12, 2004


/s/ Kenneth Hilowitz
-----------------------------------------
Kenneth Hilowitz, chief financial officer
TrimFast Group, Inc.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LaBranche & Co Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey A. McCutcheon, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and to the best of my knowledge, 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 at the end of, and for, the period covered by the Report.



|                   |  |  |  |        |  |                                                  
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  |  |       
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2007 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Jeffrey A. McCutcheon                        
|                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Jeffrey A. McCutcheon                            
|                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LaBranche & Co Inc. and will be retained by
LaBranche & Co Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49934-49935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23407]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Notice of Meeting; National Research Advisory Council

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the National Research 
Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Wednesday, December 6, 2017, at 
the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Conference Room 5a110 at 
1670 Clairmont Rd., Decatur, Georgia 30033. The meeting will convene at 
9:00 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. This meeting is open to the public.
    The agenda will include scientific presentations on animal 
research, mental health, rehabilitation and a facility tour. Additional 
presentations will include: Balancing research challenges, an overview 
of the animal research program from the Chief

[[Page 49935]]

Veterinary Medical Officer, a review of the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention partnership with the Atlanta Medical Center and positive 
impacts of research. The Chair will provide a synthesis of his cross-
committee collaborative meeting attendance at the Geriatrics and 
Gerontology Advisory Committee and National Academic Affiliations 
Council FACA meetings. The annual report will be reviewed. No time will 
be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the 
public. Members of the public wanting to attend may contact Melissa 
Cooper, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Research and Development 
(10P9), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 461-6044, or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#470a222b2e3434266904282837223507312669202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="165b737a7f6565773855797966736456607738717960">[email protected]</span></a> no later than close of business on November 29, 
2017. Because the meeting is being held in a government building, a 
photo I.D. must be presented at the protocols, and in order to prevent 
delays in clearance processing, you should allow an additional 30 
minutes before the meeting begins. Any member of the public seeking 
additional information should contact Melissa Cooper at the phone 
number or email address noted above.

    Dated: October 24, 2017.
LaTonya L. Small,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-23407 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DESMON TERRILL BARNHILL, a/k/a T.B., a/k/a Terry, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cr-00075-D-1) 

Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 28, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Desmon Terrill Barnhill, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Desmon Terrill Barnhill appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Barnhill, No. 7:10-cr-00075-D-1 (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2018). 

We deny Barnhill’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,700,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,282,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                   154,400
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,983,700
<PP&E>                                       4,739,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 411,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,885,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,765,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,800
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,832,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,885,900
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,953,100
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,399,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               209,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (11,600)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,556,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,556,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,556,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50208-50209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23499]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 09/09-0481]


Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business 
Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest: Propel Venture Partners US Fund 
I, L.P.

    Notice is hereby given that Propel Venture Partners US Fund, L.P., 
201 Mission Street, 25th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, a Federal 
Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended 
(``the Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concerns, 
has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and section 
107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small 
Business Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 
107.730). Propel Venture Partners US Fund, L.P. proposes to purchase 
common stock of Kasisto, Inc. from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. 
(``BBVA''). Kasisto has requested the transaction because it prefers 
the shares to be held by a venture investor who will support the 
continued growth of the company.
    The proposed transaction is brought within the purview of section 
107.730 of the Regulations because BBVA is the sole owner of Propel 
Venture Partners US Fund, L.P. BBVA is considered an Associate of 
Propel Venture Partners US Fund, L.P. pursuant to section 107.50. 
Therefore, the proposed transaction is considered self-deal pursuant to 
13 CFR 107.730 and requires a regulatory exemption. Notice is hereby 
given that any interested person may submit written comments on the 
transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to 
Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business

[[Page 50209]]

Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: October 23, 2017.
A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2017-23499 Filed 10-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P