alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 6, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00040

- CV

TEMPLETON MORTGAGE CORPORATION

, Appellant

v.

Michael MIDDLETON

, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10

- 422

Honorable N. Keith Williams , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this c ourt’s memorandum opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Costs of appeal are taxed against Appellant Templeton Mortgage Corporation.

It is so ORDERED on M ay 6, 2015

.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of May, 2015

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
----

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 Quarterly Report of Amalgamated Pictures Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Avery Pack, President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: August 11, 2006

| /s/ Avery Pack                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Avery Pack,           President and Chief Executive Officer           (Principal Executive Officer) and           Acting Chief Financial Officer           (Principal Financial Officer and           Principal Accounting Officer) |
§ 3430.4 Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply. ( a ) The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200 on December 26, 2013. In 2 CFR 400.1, the Department adopted OMB's guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 200, as supplemented by 2 CFR part 400, as the Department's policies and procedures for uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for federal awards. As a result, this regulation contains references to 2 CFR part 200 as it has regulatory effect for the Department's programs and activities.”
( b ) Several other Federal statutes and/or regulations apply to grant proposals considered for review or to research project grants awarded under this part. These include but are not limited to:
2 CFR part 200—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, And Audit Requirements For Federal Awards. 2 CFR part 180 and Part 417—OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government-Wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and USDA Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension 7 CFR part 1c—USDA Implementation of the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. 7 CFR 1.1—USDA Implementation of Freedom of Information Act. 7 CFR part 3—USDA Implementation of OMB Circular A-129 Regarding Debt Collection. 7 CFR part 15, subpart A—USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 7 CFR part 3407—NIFA Procedures to Implement the National Environmental Policy Act; 29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR part 15B (USDA implementation of statute)—prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs; and 35 U.S.C. 200 *et seq.*—Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR part 401).
[79 FR 76000, Dec. 19, 2014]
8.004 Use of other sources.       If an agency is unable to satisfy requirements for supplies and services from the mandatory sources listed in 8.002 and 8.003, agencies are encouraged to consider satisfying requirements from or through the non-mandatory sources listed in paragraph (a) of this section (not listed in any order of priority) before considering the non-mandatory source listed in paragraph (b) of this section. When satisfying requirements from non-mandatory sources, see 7.105(b) and part  19 regarding consideration of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business (including 8(a) participants), and women-owned small business concerns.                                       (a)                                                         (1)                          								                Supplies. Federal Supply Schedules, Governmentwide acquisition contracts, multi-agency contracts, and any other procurement instruments intended for use by multiple agencies, including blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) under Federal Supply Schedule contracts (e.g., Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI) agreements accessible at http://www.gsa.gov/fssi (see also 5.601)).                                                            (2)                          								                Services. Agencies are encouraged to consider Federal Prison Industries, Inc., as well as the sources listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section (see subpart  8.6).                                                                             (b)                    						            Commercial sources (including educational and non-profit institutions) in the open market.    **Parent topic:** Part 8 - Required Sources of Supplies and Services
1 The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3708

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Northern District of Iowa. * Juan Diego Molina, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 12, 2000 Filed: September 28, 2000

___________ Before BOWMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Juan Diego Molina, convictedafter trial by jury on three counts of distribution of methamphetamine and one count of using a communication facility in the commission of a drug offense, appeals both his conviction and the resulting sentence. He argues that the District Court 2 erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal,-2-

claiming entrapment as a matter of law. As to his sentence, he argues that the District Cou rt committed plain error in applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice.
Molina's entrapment argument must fail, inasmuch as the evidence does not clearly show entrapment as a matter of law. In particular, there is testimony from the government's cooperator, one Burdette Twiford, that prior to any request by Twiford to purchase drugs from Molina, Molina asked Twiford whether Twiford wanted to buy thirty pounds of marijuana that Molina's brother was trying to sell. Thereafter, Twiford asked Molina whether Molina could get him pound quantities of methamphetamine, whichMolina was able to do and did do, delivering a pound of methamphetamine. On the basis of this and other evidence in the trial record, the case is distinguishable from UnitedStates v. Brooks , 215 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2000), and other cases in which entrapment

as a matter of law has been found. We are satisfied that the government presented a submissible case and that Molina's motion for a judgment of acquittal was correctly denied.
The imposition of the two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, to which Molina did not object, was not plain error. At the sentencing hearing, and as part of an agreement with the government to a total offense level of thirty-four, Molina withdrew all objections to the pre-sentence investigation report, including his objection to the obstruction of justice enhancement. Molina thus has waived the issue.
Molina's conviction and sentence are affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Three Months Ended          Six Months Ended
                                                                         June 29,     June 29,      June 29,       June 29,
                                                                          1997         1996          1997           1996
                                                                          ----         ----          ----           ----
                                                                            (In thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                                                   <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>     
CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE:

PRIMARY:

Weighted average common shares outstanding during the period ...        34,162         33,176        34,115        32,996
                                                                                             
Dilutive effect of stock options using the treasury stock method            --          2,877           990         3,091
                                                                      --------------------------------------------------- 
          Total common equivalent shares .......................        34,162         36,053        35,105        36,087
                                                                      ---------------------------------------------------
Net income (loss) ..............................................      $ (3,020)      $  8,488      $     55      $ 15,957

Net income (loss) per share ....................................      $  (0.09)      $   0.24      $   0.00      $   0.44


FULLY DILUTED:(1)

Weighted average common shares outstanding during the period ...        34,162         33,176        34,115        32,996

Diluted effect of stock options using the treasury stock method             --          3,078           990         3,226
                                                                      ---------------------------------------------------
          Total common equivalent shares .......................        34,162         36,254        35,105        36,222
                                                                      ---------------------------------------------------
Net income (loss) ..............................................      $ (3,020)      $  8,488      $     55      $ 15,957

Net income (loss) per share ....................................      $  (0.09)      $   0.23      $   0.00      $   0.44
</TABLE>


--------------------
(1)This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item
601(b)(11) although not required by Footnote 2 to Paragraph 14 of APB Opinion
No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JONATHAN M. DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv180–WS/MAF

AARON DOUGHERTY,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 55) docketed January 14, 2022. The magistrate judge recommends that

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44) be granted. Plaintiff has

filed no objections to the report and recommendation.

Having considered the record, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation is due to be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 55) is

hereby ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

Case 4:20-cv-00180-WS-MAF Document 56 Filed 03/04/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED. 

3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

4. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: “All claims are dismissed.”

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of March , 2022.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:20-cv-00180-WS-MAF Document 56 Filed 03/04/22 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2530 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2530

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits and 
   communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Transparency and Efficient 
Audit Act''.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES TO TAXPAYER CORRESPONDENCE.

    Not later than 30 days after receiving any written correspondence 
from a taxpayer, the Internal Revenue Service shall provide a 
substantive written response. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
an acknowledgment letter shall not be treated as a substantive 
response.

SEC. 3. TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURES BY IRS OF TAXPAYER 
              INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after disclosing any 
taxpayer information to any agency or instrumentality of Federal, 
State, or local government, the Internal Revenue Service shall provide 
a written notification to the taxpayer describing--
            (1) the information disclosed,
            (2) to whom it was disclosed, and
            (3) the date of disclosure.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary of 
the Treasury, or the Secretary's designee, determines that such 
notification would be detrimental to an ongoing criminal investigation 
or pose a risk to national security.

SEC. 4. DEADLINE FOR CONCLUSION OF AUDITS OF INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.

    If any audit of a tax return of an individual by the Internal 
Revenue Service is not concluded before the end of the 1-year period 
beginning on the date of the initiation of such audit, the Internal 
Revenue Service shall provide the taxpayer a written letter explaining 
why such audit has taken more than 1 year to complete.

SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.

    No additional funds are authorized to carry out the requirements of 
this Act. Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts 
otherwise authorized or appropriated.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 25, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2530

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits and 
   communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service.
```
Thermoelectric Wine Chiller Table of Results Cold Setting

DOE ID 

Number

Capacity 

(Wine Bottles)

Total 

Refrigerated 

Volume (ft3)

Ambient 

Temperature 

(°F)

Annual Energy 

Use (Using 1.2 

Usage Factor--

kWh/year)

Daily Energy 

Linear 

Interpolation 

(kWh/day)

Daily 

Energy 

(kWh)

90 1.33 1.144

72 142 0.32 -

90 1.77 -

72 439 1.00 1.824

90 1.51 1.512

72 664 1.51 1.584

1 6 0.64

3 28 2.26

2 12 1.08
Cold Setting Mid Setting Warm Setting

Compartment 

Temperature 

(°F)

Daily 

Energy 

(kWh)

Compartment 

Temperature 

(°F)

Daily 

Energy 

(kWh)

Compartment 

Temperature 

(°F)

57.3 1.144 57.2 0.456 65.8

- 0.328 54.7 0.152 64.2

- 1.782 54.8 0.944 74.3

39.9 0.978 55.5 - -

71.3 - - 1.512 71.5

54.7 0.720 58.1 - -
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T20:14:26-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
§ 3201.64 Compost activators and accelerators. ( a ) *Definition.* Products in liquid or powder form designed to be applied to compost piles to aid in speeding up the composting process and to ensure successful compost that is ready for consumer use.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 95 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 23, 2012, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased compost activators and accelerators. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased compost activators and accelerators.
[76 FR 43817, July 22, 2011]
114 STAT. 312 PUBLIC LAW 106–205—MAY 26, 2000

Public Law 106–205

106th Congress

Joint Resolution

Supporting the Day of Honor 2000 to honor and recognize the service of minority

veterans in the United States Armed Forces during World War II.

Whereas World War II was a determining event of the 20th century

in that it ensured the preservation and continuation of American

democracy;

Whereas the United States called upon all its citizens, including

the most oppressed of its citizens, to provide service and sacrifice

in that war to achieve the Allied victory over Nazism and fascism;

Whereas the United States citizens who served in that war, many

of whom gave the ultimate sacrifice of their lives, included more

than 1,200,000 African Americans, more than 300,000 Hispanic

Americans, more than 50,000 Asian Americans, more than 20,000

Native Americans, more than 6,000 Native Hawaiians and Pacific

Islanders, and more than 3,000 Native Alaskans;

Whereas because of invidious discrimination, many of the courageous military activities of these minorities were not reported

and honored fully and appropriately until decades after the Allied

victory in World War II;

Whereas the motto of the United States, ‘‘E Pluribus Unum’’ (Out

of Many, One), promotes our fundamental unity as Americans

and acknowledges our diversity as our greatest strength; and

Whereas the Day of Honor 2000 Project has enlisted communities

across the United States to participate in celebrations to honor

minority veterans of World War II on May 25, 2000, and throughout the year 2000: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress—

(1) commends the African American, Hispanic American,

Asian American, Native American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific

Islanders, Native Alaskan, and other minority veterans of the

United States Armed Forces who served during World War

II;

(2) especially honors those minority veterans who gave

their lives in service to the United States during that war;

May 26, 2000

[S.J. Res. 44]

PUBLIC LAW 106–205—MAY 26, 2000 114 STAT. 313

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S.J. Res. 44 (H.J. Res. 98):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

May 18, considered and passed Senate.

May 23, considered and passed House.

Æ

(3) supports the goals and ideas of the ‘‘Day of Honor

2000’’ in celebration and recognition of the extraordinary service

of all minority veterans in the United States Armed Forces

during World War II; and

(4) authorizes and requests that the President issue a

proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to

honor these minority veterans with appropriate programs and

activities.

Approved May 26, 2000.

President.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T22:25:11-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
* 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

March 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41267

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCIANO MARIANO SERVIN-TERRAZAS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:06-CR-313-ALL

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Marciano Mariano

Servin-Terrazas raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.