alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-3469

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Elmer Lee Wells, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________

Submitted: May 5, 2021

Filed: May 10, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

Elmer Wells, Jr., appeals a within-Guidelines-range sentence of 21 months in 

prison for violating the conditions of supervised release. He challenges the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, and his attorney seeks permission to 

withdraw. 
-2- 

We conclude that Wells’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United 

States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the reasonableness of 

a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 

1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is 

presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court1

sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 

3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of 

judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Iowa.
EXHIBIT
32.1




Certification


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pressure BioSciences, Inc.,
a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Richard T. Schumacher, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code) that:





(1)
  The Report of the Company 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.





Date: November
      15, 2010
            By:
            /s/   Richard T.
      SchumacherRichard
      T. Schumacher
              President
      & Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pressure BioSciences, Inc. and will be retained by Pressure BioSciences, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS** AUSTIN
February I, 1939

Hon. Charles T. Banister Crim1na.i

Dletrlot Attorney Coreioana,Texas Dear air;

ailow it to ba oome legal In

tloa held uadar tha laws of' tha **d in**  tome at the tlms of the

sell, barter, Or exsuoh county, justlastspraoinat or lnoorporatad

town or olty, any spirituous, vlinOWJ or malt liquors or medloetedbitters capable of produolnglatorloatlon or any other lntoxloants whatsoever,for beverage purposes, unless and uak tll a majority 

### of the quallrlatl voters In suoh county or polltloal subdlvlslonthereof voting in al?-:elsotlon

held for suoh purposs shall determine such to ba uniawful.WBoa. Charlea T. Banister,February 7, 1939, Page 2

The oaeea, Ex Part6 Pollard, 103 SN 879; Medford vs. State, 74 SW 768; Woods vs. State, 75 SW 37; Nelson vs. State, 74 SW 502. Sx Farta Fields, 86 SW 1022; Walling vs. King, 87 SW (2nd\ 1074; and Coker vs. Kmelolk, 87 SW (2nd) 1076 hold in effect, notwithstanding the fact, the CommlssloneretCourt has the oleer legal right after a looal option elaotionhas been held in a justfoeprsolnotmay add sama to some other justicepraolnotwithin the County,but in so doing, 

### da Comlasion0ra ' Court doee not and oannot under the law in any.way interferewith looal option as adopted, and,lts aotlon does not invalidatethe local option election formerlyheld in said territory,but that it requiresa vote of the people living tithln the originalbounds or the justloe'spraolnotwhloh put local optloa into afieot to aulllry the same.

On May 1, 1936, Hon. Laoa 0. Moses, AssistantAttoruey Caneral, randaradan opinionholding that e justloe pnolnot whloh 1s wet may not have its territory merged by the CBPisslonersl Court so as to taks.1~ dry territoryand no permit oan be Issued wlthln said territory.

This Department

has repeatedlyheld and there are numerous'dsolslons in support thereof that the merging of a dry .Justloe

preolnotwlth a juatloopreolnot in whloh the sale OS beer or other liquor la legal doaw not, in any way efisot the status of the dry territory so merged or oonsoljdated with the wet territory.

In vlaw of the foregoingauthorities, you are re8peotPullyadvised that it 1s the oplnlon or thte Department that where the sale of bear 1s legal In one praoinot and it urges wlth another juetloepreolnotwhloh does not allow bear to be cold, the sale of beer does not beoome legal in the territorywbareln the sale of beer or other liquorswera prohibitedby reason of being merged and consolidated with the ust territory.

Trufitlng.that

the foregoinganswersyour lnqulry, we re&n Very truly Yours A'ITOHNETG- OFTEXAS

BP Ardall willlams

AsEi8taIlt

~/ AW: Au' APPRCVED (signed)Gsrald C. Mann .-A--- _..K..Y.T

Ala ataT
Exhibit 32.2


           Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
                           and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
     (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

I, Robert G. Costantini, as Chief Financial Officer of First Aviation Services
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my
knowledge:

(1)  the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
     period ended October 31, 2004 (the "Report"), filed with the U.S.
     Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 Company.


Dated: December 15, 2004


                                                        /s/ Robert G. Costantini
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Robert G. Costantini
                                                        Chief Financial Officer

                                       26
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 Lottery & Wagering Solutions Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Miles R. Greenberg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

(a)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                                       /s/ Miles R. Greenberg
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                                       February 11, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7830

ROBERT JOHN MOES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JEFFREY L. BANEY, Case Manager Coordinator,

CMC; ROBERT E. BRIGHT, Unit Manager;

STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-05-

1148-RWT)

Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 19, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert John Moes, Appellant Pro Se. James A. Frederick, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert John Moes appeals the district court’s order

denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Moes v. Baney, No.

CA-05-1148-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2005). 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
#### In Re: Henry McKinley SCOTT, Jr., Petitioner.

No. 10-2264.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 10, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 8, 2011.

*598Henry McKinley Scott, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry McKinley Scott, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2010) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we deny the mandamus petition. This ruling is without prejudice to Scott’s right to file another mandamus petition in the future should there be future undue delay in the district court’s handling of Scott’s § 2241 petition. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
2009-0189.

#### In re Adrian R.

Licking App. No. 08-CA-17, 2008-Ohio-6581. On motion to dismiss appeal as improvidently allowed. Motion denied.

O’Donnell and Cupp, JJ., dissent.
EXHIBIT 33.2



Indenture Trustees Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria



Managements Assertion of Compliance



Management of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (the Company) is responsible for providing this assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, relating to the servicing of the Franklin Auto Trust Platform, comprised of publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities (the Platform), as of September 30, 2007, and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.



Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable in regards to the Platform:



Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activities performed by the Company, excluding the following servicing criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i) through 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d) (2)(iii) through 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(4)(i) through 1122(4)(xv) (the Applicable Servicing Criteria).



With respect to the Platform, the Companys management provides the following assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

·

The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of September 30, 2007 and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.

·

The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of September 30, 2007 and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.

·

Based on such assessment, other than as identified onAppendix A hereto, as of September 30, 2007 and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to managements assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of September 30, 2007 and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.



CITIBANK, N.A.



By:

/s/ Karen Montbach



Its:

Managing Director



Dated:

11/29/07







Appendix A

Material Instances of Non-compliance



1.

1122(d)(3)(ii) Amounts due to investors are allocated and remitted in accordance with timeframes, distribution priority and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements.  With respect to certain remittances during the reporting period, the amounts due to the Class R investor were allocated and remitted in accordance with distribution priority and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements, but were not credited to such Class R investors account until the business day next succeeding the applicable distribution date.
#### Braulia MORALEZ-ESIQUIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72980.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*165Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 18, 2011.

Stephanie Thorpe, Manuel Rios, III, Rios-Cantor, P.S. Attorneys at Law, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Susan Houser, OIL, Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Braulia Moralez-Esiquio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance because Moralez-Esiquio did not demonstrate good cause. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown).

We lack jurisdiction to review Moralez-Esiquio’s due process claim because she failed to raise it before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
               THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
               FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS
               OF  OPERATIONS  FOUND ON PAGES 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE  COMPANY'S  FORM
               10-Q FOR THE  YEAR-TO-DATE,  AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
               REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               Jun-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                                    Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                                              571,549
<SECURITIES>                                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     2,690,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        (88,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                       4,371,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  7,815,883
<PP&E>                                                            4,964,066
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   (2,920,946)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    9,922,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             3,950,737
<BONDS>                                                           2,863,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                             55,406
<OTHER-SE>                                                        3,052,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      9,922,748
<SALES>                                                           6,112,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  6,112,497
<CGS>                                                             4,925,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     4,925,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    882,975
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  (99,455)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     246,366
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         92,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 154,366
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        154,366
<EPS-BASIC>                                                             .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           .03


</TABLE>
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40872

Conference Calendar

 

BENJAMIN TILLMAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY; R. D. MILES, Warden,

Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CV-314

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Tillman, federal inmate # 04060-017, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 

Because Tillman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenged the

legality of his conviction, Tillman was required to show that 28

U.S.C. § 2255 provided him with an inadequate or ineffective

remedy. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). 

“[T]he savings clause of § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is

based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which
No. 03-40872

-2-

established that the petitioner may have been convicted of a

nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law

at the time when the claim should have been raised in the

petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion." ReyesRequena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

To bring his claim under the “savings clause,” Tillman

argues that he could not have brought the instant claim that the

sentencing court was without jurisdiction to sentence him until

1998, when the Eleventh Circuit issued Harris v. United States,

149 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 1998). Harris, however, is not a

retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that

Tillman may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. 

Because Tillman fails to identify any authority demonstrating

that he was convicted of a non-existent offense, his

jurisdictional challenge to his conviction fails to satisfy the

first prong of the Reyes-Requena test. The district court’s

dismissal of Tillman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is therefore

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rebekah Mariya Nett, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Rebekah Mariya Nett, Respondent.

Supreme Court

*No. 2014AP337-D.*

Decided *August 20, 2014.*

2014 WI 106

(Also reported in 852 N.W.2d 486.)

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. This is a reciprocal discipline matter. On February 11, 2014, the Office of Lawyer *301Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22 requesting that this court suspend the license of Attorney Rebekah Mariya Nett for a period of one year as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

¶ 2. Attorney Nett was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 2002. She is also admitted to practice law in Minnesota.

¶ 3. The OLR's complaint noted that on November 27, 2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Attorney Nett's Minnesota law license with no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of nine months for engaging in a pattern of bad faith litigation, including making false and harassing statements toward judges and others involved in litigation against her clients.1 The Minnesota Supreme Court found that these actions violated Rules 3.1, 4.4(a), 8.2(a), and 8.4(d) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

¶ 4. On March 19, 2014, this court issued an order directing Attorney Nett to show cause why the imposition of discipline identical to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court would be unwarranted. Although Attorney Nett failed to file a timely response to the order to show cause, on May 6, 2014, she sent a letter to the OLR stating that she did not contest the OLR's complaint.

¶ 5. Under SCR 22.22(3), in reciprocal discipline matters, this court shall impose the identical discipline *302unless one of the enumerated exceptions is shown. There is no indication that any of those exceptions apply in this case.

¶ 6. IT IS ORDERED that the license of Rebekah Mariya Nett to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, effective the date of this order.

¶ 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rebekah Mariya Nett shall comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended.

1

 The indefinite suspension imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court requires Attorney Nett to wait nine months before applying for reinstatement. In Wisconsin, a one-year suspension would give Attorney Nett the right to apply for reinstatement after nine months. *See*SCR 22.29(1).