alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kevin Ray PURNELL, Appellant.

No. 10-2614.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 7, 2010.

Filed: Dec. 9, 2010.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Purnell pled guilty to one count of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). After calculating a Guidelines imprisonment range of 188-235 months, the district court1 sentenced Purnell to 180 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that Purnell believes that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first *126ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); *United States v. Haack,*403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing abuse of discretion).

Having reviewed the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we allow counsel to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1396-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, (FEMA-1396-DR), dated November 28, 2001, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

December 12, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Readiness, Response and Recovery and Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705 or madge.dale@fema.gov. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of November 28, 2001:

Aguas Buenas, Orocovis, and Vega Alta Municipalities for Public Assistance. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Joe M. Allbaugh,

Director.

[FR Doc. 01-31373 Filed 12-19-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Payne, Appellant.

[610 NYS2d 829]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered March 26, 1990, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the eyewitnesses to the crime, who were also the victims, each had a sufficient independent basis to identify the defendant in court *(see, United States v Wade,*388 US 218). Therefore, their in-court identifications were properly permitted despite suggestive pretrial police-arranged identifications.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                            <C>          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1998  MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-1-1997   JUN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1998  MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,693,220    1,698,099
<SECURITIES>                                   108,908      55,426
<RECEIVABLES>                                  600,291      882,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                   195,000      314,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,528,263    2,538,234
<PP&E>                                         94,539       79,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                 46,165       28,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,928,198    3,984,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          264,199      592,213
<BONDS>                                        0            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0            0
<PREFERRED>                                    0            0
<COMMON>                                       12           12
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,041,415    2,879,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,928,198    3,984,088
<SALES>                                        2,888,734    2,747,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,888,734    2,747,795
<CGS>                                          0            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,542,837    1,934,438
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             70,292       61,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                275,605      752,318
<INCOME-TAX>                                   113,535      311,168
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            162,070      441,150
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0            19,942
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0            0
<CHANGES>                                      0            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   162,070      461,092
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .17          .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .16          .45
        


</TABLE>
73 A.3d 576

#### Baljunder S. MATHARU and Jessica A. Matharu, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Milan Singh Matharu, Deceased, Respondents v. Scott D. MUIR, D.O., Fiorina Pellegrino, D.O., Hazelton Women’s Care Center and Muir Ob/Gyn Associates, P.C., Petitioners.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 22, 2013.

*107
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the Order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of *Seebold v. Prison Health Serv.,*618 Pa. 632, 57 A.3d 1232 (2012).

Petitioners’ Application to Remand this Matter to Superior Court for Reconsideration in Light of *Seebold,*is DISMISSED as moot.

Justice Baer dissents and would deny the allocatur petition as he views *Seebold v. Prison Health Serv.,*618 Pa. 632, 57 A.3d 1232 (2012) as distinguishable from this case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from condensed
consolidated financial statements for year ended September 30, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                           1000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                         OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,304
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                   932
<INVENTORY>                                 18,358
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,106
<PP&E>                                      46,086
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              76,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,655
<BONDS>                                      8,244
<COMMON>                                        71
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                76,035
<SALES>                                    103,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           121,308
<CGS>                                       86,491
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,037
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,330
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,707
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,707
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.09
        





</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

 
                           COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


 
 
                                                             YEAR ENDED
                                                             DECEMBER 31,
                                                         1994 (1)     1995

Primary earnings per share:
 
  Net income                                               $12,098   $17,050
                                                           =======   =======
 
Weighted average number of outstanding common shares        20,933    21,122
Additional shares assuming exercise of stock options           935     1,480
                                                           -------   -------
Weighted average number of outstanding common
   and common equivalent shares                             21,868    22,602
                                                           =======   =======
 
Primary earnings per share                                 $  0.55   $  0.75
                                                           =======   =======
 
Fully diluted earnings per share:
 
  Net income                                                         $17,050
                                                                     =======
 
 
Weighted average number of outstanding common shares                  21,122
Additional shares assuming exercise of stock options                   1,587
                                                                     -------
Weighted average number of outstanding common shares
  assuming full dilution                                              22,709
                                                                     =======
 
Fully diluted earnings per share                                     $  0.75
                                                                     =======
 

(1) Fully diluted earnings per share for the year ended December 31, 1994 were
    antidilutive and are omitted.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3319 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to amend 

regulations relating to exemptions for engines and equipment for purposes of national security, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2021 

Mr. POSEY (for himself, Mr. RYAN, and Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to amend regulations relating to exemptions for 

engines and equipment for purposes of national security, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘First Responders’ 

5 Equipment Access Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3319 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO REGULATIONS EXEMPTING EN2 GINES/EQUIPMENT FOR NATIONAL SECU3 RITY. 

4 Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

5 of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Pro6 tection Agency shall revise the regulations under section 

7 1068.225(d) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as 

8 in effect on the date of enactment of this Act)— 

9 (1) to authorize— 

10 (A) manufacturers and secondary engine 

11 manufacturers to request a national security ex12 emption under such section 1068.225(d) for en13 gines or equipment intended to be used by Fed14 eral, State, or local agencies for providing law 

15 enforcement, disaster relief, search and rescue, 

16 or emergency medical services; and 

17 (B) an agency of the Federal Government 

18 responsible for national defense and the De19 partment of Homeland Security (including the 

20 Federal Emergency Management Agency) to 

21 endorse a request described in subparagraph 

22 (A); and 

23 (2) to specify that a request for a national secu24 rity exemption described in paragraph (1)(A), and 

25 an endorsement of such a request described in para26 graph (1)(B), is not required to specify a quantity 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3319 IH

1 of engines or equipment to be exempted in order to 

2 receive such an exemption. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pasquale POLIMENI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 311, Docket 24455.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued May 16, 1957.

Decided May 16, 1957.

James J. Hanrahan, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty. for the Southern Dist. of New York, New York City (Herbert M. Waehtell, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and SWAN and POPE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed in open court.
J-S08033-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

KEVIN LEE SHOLAR

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 385 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 1, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-67-CR-0004181-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: MAY 8, 2023

I agree that we are bound by the en banc Majority decisions in Richards

and Moroz to treat Appellant’s prior acceptance of ARD as a first DUI offense. 

See Commonwealth v. Richards, 284 A.3d 214, 220-21 (Pa. Super. 2022), 

appeal granted, 518 MAL 2022 (Pa. Mar. 15, 2023) (en banc); 

Commonwealth v. Moroz, 284 A.3d 227, 233 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc).1 

However, for the reasons expressed in my Dissenting Opinions, I believe 

Richards and Moroz were wrongly decided. See Richards, 284 A.3d at 222-

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See also Commonwealth v. Verbeck, 290 A.3d 260 (Pa. 2023); 

Commonwealth v. Hummel, __ A.3d __, 1147 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. April 

4, 2023).
J-S08033-23

- 2 -

26 (Dissenting Op., McCaffery, J.); Moroz, 284 A.3d at 235-39 (Dissenting 

Op., McCaffery, J.). Thus, I am constrained to concur in this decision.

Judge Colins joins the Concurring Statement.
74 A.3d 121

#### Tyshon BALDWIN, Petitioner v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, Respondent.

No. 90 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 4, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2013, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are DISMISSED. *See Commonwealth v. Reid,*537 Pa. 167, 642 A.2d 453 (1994) (hybrid representation not permissible). The Prothonotary is directed to forward the filings to counsel of record.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"International Warehouse Logistics Association","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YBtomIwlpG\"><a href=\"\/international-warehouse-logistics-association\/\">International Warehouse Logistics Association<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/international-warehouse-logistics-association\/embed\/#?secret=YBtomIwlpG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“International Warehouse Logistics Association” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"YBtomIwlpG\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Ainslie PERRAULT and Mae Frances Perrault, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Repsondent. R. M. GUNN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent (two cases). Alma L. GUNN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Arthur T. SAUNDERS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Margueret A. SAUNDERS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Arthur T. SAUNDERS and Margueret A. Saunders, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. R. E. STANFORD, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Peggy Q. STANFORD, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Ainslie PERRAULT, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Mae Frances PERRAULT, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ALLIED PAINT MANUFACTURING CO., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Nos. 5465-5476.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 19, 1957.

Graham Loving, Jr., Oklahoma City,. Okl. (Louis Eisenstein, Washington, D.. *409C., and James D. Fellers, Oklahoma City, Okl., were with him on the brief), for petitioners.

David O. Walter, Washington, D. C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and A. F. Prescott, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., were with him on the brief), for respondent.

Before HUXMAN, MURRAH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek to review decisions of the Tax Court involving the personal income tax liabilities of the individual petitioners for the years 1946 and 1948 and the corporate income tax liability of the Allied Paint Company for the years 1947, 1948, and 1949. The Tax Court has determined that income claimed by the individual petitioners as proceeds from a sale and taxable as a capital gain should be treated as dividend income and subject to normal rates.1 The corporate adjustments are routine if the Tax Court’s position is sound as applied to the individual petitioners.

The basic transaction giving rise to the instant dispute is the identical transaction involved in this court’s consideration of Houck v. Hinds, 10 Cir., 215 F. 2d 673. The individual parties here were partners of Houck whose case was considered on appeal for claim of refund for the year 1946. The substantive question presented is identical and, in reliance upon Houck, the Tax Court has reached the same conclusions and result as we affirmed in that case.

Although petitioners have elaborately briefed the case they can draw no factual or legal distinction of significance between the two cases. In Houck the findings of fact were sustained by this court without examination because the record did not contain the transcript of testimony below. In the present case the record is complete and the findings, adequately supported by the evidence, are substantially the same.

The decision of the Tax Court of the United States in each case is affirmed.

1

. The findings and opinion of the Tax Court are reported at 25 T.C. 424 and 25 T.C. 439.