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

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1215

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brian LeBeau

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Western

 ____________

 Submitted: June 18, 2024

Filed: June 24, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Brian LeBeau appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release

and sentenced him to 10 months in prison and an additional period of supervision. 

LeBeau challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.
After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse

its discretion in imposing the revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557

F.3d 910, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). There is no indication the

district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, gave significant

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in

weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.

2006) (reciting considerations to discern whether revocation sentence is

unreasonable); see also United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009)

(district courts have wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and are

allowed to assign greater weight to some factors over others). Moreover, the

revocation sentence is within the Guidelines range and accorded a presumption of

substantive reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107,

1110 (8th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
§ 655.20 Securities not registered under the Securities Act. The Corporation must make special filings with the Director of OSMO for securities either issued or guaranteed by the Corporation that are not registered under the Securities Act. These filings include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Either one paper or one electronic copy of any offering circular, private placement memorandum, or information statement prepared in connection with the securities offering at or before the time of the securities offering.
( b ) For securities backed by qualified loans as defined in section 8.0(9)(A) of the Act, either one paper or one electronic copy of the following within 1 business day of the finalization of the transaction: ( 1 ) The private placement memoranda for securities sold to investors; and
( 2 ) The final agreement and all supporting documents material to the Corporation's purchase of a security under section 8.6(e) of the Act.
( c ) For securities backed by qualified loans as defined in section 8.0(9)(B) of the Act, the Corporation must provide summary information on such securities issued during each calendar quarter in the form prescribed by us. Such summary information must be provided with each report of condition and performance (Call report) filed pursuant to § 621.12, and at such other times as we may require.
exv10w1



 


EXHIBIT 10.1


Statement of the Management Board and the Supervisory Board of ALTANA
Aktiengesellschaft pursuant to Section 161 of the German Stock Corporation Act
(AktG) and Section 15 of the Introductory Act for the German Stock Corporation
Act (EG AktG) with respect to the German Corporate Governance Code


ALTANA Aktiengesellschaft complies with the recommendations of the German
Government Commission “German Corporate Governance Code” provided that the
Company will disclose the purchase and sale of shares, options and other
derivative instruments by members of the Management Board and the Supervisory
Board in accordance with Section 15a of the German Securities Trading Act
(WpHG).1


Bad Homburg v. d. Höhe, September 16, 2002


ALTANA Aktiengesellschaft



	 	 	 
	The Management Board	 	
The Supervisory Board








	 	 	1 The qualification referring to Section 15a of the German Securities Trading
Act (WpHG) became irrelevant when the German Corporate Governance Code was
amended in November 2002 to bring it in line with the requirements of § 15a of
the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). Since that date, the Company has
been in full compliance with the recommendations of the German Corporate
Governance Code.
```

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 Eldorado Artesian Springs,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the period  ending  December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I,
Douglas Larson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
USC SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Douglas Larson
------------------
Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 18, 2005
```
§ 107.165 Record retention. ( a ) A person who submits a declaration of compliance under this subpart must retain and make available to the Administrator, upon request, the information described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for the period of time described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. ( 1 ) All supporting information used to demonstrate the small unmanned aircraft meets the requirements of §§ 107.120(a), for operations in Category 2, and 107.130(a), for operations in Category 3.
( 2 ) The following time periods apply: ( i ) If the person who submits a declaration of compliance produces a small unmanned aircraft, that person must retain the information described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for two years after the cessation of production of the small unmanned aircraft system for which the person declared compliance.
( ii ) If the person who submits a declaration of compliance designs or modifies a small unmanned aircraft, that person must retain the information described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for two years after the person submitted the declaration of compliance.
( b ) A person who submits a means of compliance under this subpart must retain and make available to the Administrator, upon request, and for as long as the means of compliance remains accepted, the detailed description of the means of compliance and justification showing how the means of compliance meets the requirements of §§ 107.120(a), for operations in Category 2, and 107.130(a), for operations in Category 3.
§ 792.17 What can I do if the time limit passes and I still have not received a response? ( a ) If NCUA does not comply with the time limits under § 792.15, or as extended under § 792.16, you do not have to pay search fees; requesters qualifying for free search fees will not have to pay duplication fees. However, if NCUA has extended the time limits under § 792.16 and must review more than 5,000 pages to respond to the request, NCUA may charge you search fees (or for requesters qualifying for free search fees, duplication fees), if NCUA has discussed with you via written mail, electronic mail, or telephone (or made not less than 3 good-faith attempts to do so) how you could effectively limit the scope of the request.
( b ) You can seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison or dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services. You also can file suit against NCUA because you will be deemed to have exhausted your administrative remedies if NCUA fails to comply with the time limit provisions of this subpart. If NCUA can show that exceptional circumstances exist and that it is exercising due diligence in responding to your request, the court may retain jurisdiction and allow NCUA to complete its review of the records. You may have to pay search or duplication fees if a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist and has extended the time limits for NCUA's response by a court order. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court may consider your refusal to modify the scope of your request or arrange an alternative time frame for processing after being given the opportunity to do so by NCUA, when it notifies you of the existence of unusual circumstances as set forth in § 792.16.
[82 FR 29713, June 30, 2017]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Inter Company Collaboration for Aids Drug 
Development

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 25, 1999, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Inter Company 
Collaboration for AIDS Drug Development (the ``Collaboration'') filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, although no 
changes have been made in the membership of the Collaboration, 
Collaboration Member Gilead Sciences of Foster City, CA, has acquired 
NeXstar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Boulder, CO.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the collaboration. Membership in the Collaboration remains 
open, and the Collaboration intends to file additional written 
notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 27, 1993, the Collaboration filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on July 6, 1993 (58 FR 36223).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 29, 
1999. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on September 22, 1999, (64 FR 51337).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-10620 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Sec. 1-6 Accounting entities. ( a ) Separate accounting records shall be maintained for each air transport entity for which separate reports to the BTS are required to be made by sections 21(g) and for each separate corporate or organizational division of the air carrier. For purposes of this Uniform System of Accounts and Reports, each nontransport entity conducting an activity which is not related to the air carrier's transport activities and each transport-related activity or group of activities qualifying as a nontransport venture pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, whether or not formally organized within a distinct organizational unit, shall be treated as a separately operated organizational division; except that provisions of this paragraph and paragraph (b) shall not apply to leasing activities.
( b ) As a general rule, any activity or group of activities comprising a transport-related service provided for in transport-related revenue and expense accounts 09 through 18 shall be considered a separate nontransport venture under circumstances in which either: ( 1 ) A separate corporate or legal entity has been established to perform such services,
( 2 ) the aggregate annual revenue rate, as determined in section 2-1(d), during either of the prior two years exceeds the greater of $1 million per annum or one percent of the air carrier's total annual transport revenues, or
( 3 ) the aggregate annual expense rate, as determined in section 2-1(d), during either of the prior two years exceeds the greater of $1 million or one percent of the carrier's total annual operating expenses: *Provided,* That revenues and expenses from in-flight sales, and interchange sales shall be considered related to air transportation and accounted for accordingly, regardless of the revenue or expense standard set forth above.
( c ) The records for each required accounting entity shall be maintained with sufficient particularity to permit a determination that the requirements of section 2-1 have been complied with.
[ER-755, 37 FR 19726, Sept. 21, 1972, as amended by ER-841, 39 FR 11994, Apr. 2, 1974; ER-1022, 42 FR 46495, Sept. 15, 1977; ER-1027, 42 FR 60127, Nov. 25, 1977; 60 FR 66723, Dec. 26, 1995]
§ 125.49 Airport requirements. ( a ) No certificate holder may use any airport unless it is adequate for the proposed operation, considering such items as size, surface, obstructions, and lighting.
( b ) No pilot of an airplane carrying passengers at night may take off from, or land on, an airport unless— ( 1 ) That pilot has determined the wind direction from an illuminated wind direction indicator or local ground communications, or, in the case of takeoff, that pilot's personal observations; and
( 2 ) The limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are clearly shown by boundary or runway marker lights.
( c ) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, if the area to be used for takeoff or landing is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their use must be approved by the Administrator.
#### United States Trust Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Board of Public Instruction Alachua County, Florida, a Body Corporate, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed February 23, 1923.

A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Alachua County; W. W. Hampton, Referee.

*E. G. Baxter*and *Giles Patterson,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*C. B. Layton*and *T. B. Ellis, Jr.,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

Judgment for Plaintiff. Defendant took writ of error.

In an action to recover for breach of contract it is alleged that a check was delivered to plaintiff by the defen*217clant, which cheek is set out in full in the declaration and shows an endorsement thereon making' -it payable to the order of the plaintiff “in accordance with bid of U. S. Trust Co. for Alachua School Bonds” and it is not alleged what were the terms of the bid or that facts existed which made the check payable or forfeitable “in accordance with the bid.” The demurrer to the declaration should have been sustained'. The proofs are inadequate to sustain the judgment.

Reversed.

Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Eric Bello, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Quipp, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:

November 14, 2007

| |     |                        
| | --- | -----------------------
| | By: | /s/ ERICBELLO          
| |     | Eric Bello             
| |     | Chief Financial Officer
#### KANSAS EXPLORATIONS, Inc., v. BLAINE et al.

No. 31816.

May 15, 1945.

*158 P. 2d 907.*

A. L. Commons, of Miami, for petitioner.

H. P. Walker, of Miami, and Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding brought by Kansas Explorations, Inc., petitioner, to review an order vacating an order denying an award to Jay Edison Blaine.

The record discloses that on the 1st day of September, 1943, respondent was struck in the head while serving as night watchman for petitioner. After a hearing the trial commissioner entered an order on the 16th day of February, 1944, denying an award and an appeal was taken to the commission en banc. On the 1st day of April, 1944, the State Industrial Commission entered its order vacating the prior order of the trial commissioner and set the cause for hearing on the docket of the commission for further proceedings.

The petitioner has commenced this proceeding to review such order and the parties have briefed the same upon the merits. However, we are of the opinion that this cause cannot be determined on its merits at this time. Under the provisions of 85 O.S. 1941 § 29, an appeal may be taken from a final order of the State Industrial Commission or from the final order of a single trial commissioner. The order in the case at bar is not such an order. The State Industrial Commission as of right may at any time during the period prescribed by said section set aside and vacate the order of a trial commissioner, and until there has been a final proceeding in pursuance of the order vacating the order of the trial commissioner there is nothing for this court to review.

The proceeding is therefore dismissed.

GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and OSBORN, WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.
#### § 121.111 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes rules for obtaining approval of areas and routes by certificate holders conducting supplemental operations.

[Doc. No. 28154, 61 FR 2610, Jan. 26, 1996]
Exhibit
32 (i)





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Form 10-Q of
National Bankshares, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, I, James G.
Rakes, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of
National Bankshares, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:





(1)  such Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, 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 such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of National Bankshares, Inc.








/s/ JAMES G. RAKESJames
      G. Rakes
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)
              August
      6, 2010
# Official Journal C 50/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.050.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 50 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5327 February 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.050.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 50

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5327 February 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 050/01 | Communication from the Commission relating to the available quantity for the May 2010 subperiod in the framework of certain quotas opened by the European Union for products in the rice sector | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 050/01

Communication from the Commission relating to the available quantity for the May 2010 subperiod in the framework of certain quotas opened by the European Union for products in the rice sector

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 050/02 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2010/C 050/03 | Commission Decision of 17 February 2010 appointing the members of the European Consumer Consultative Group and their alternates | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 050/02

Euro exchange rates

3

2010/C 050/03

Commission Decision of 17 February 2010 appointing the members of the European Consumer Consultative Group and their alternates

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 050/04 | Information notice — Public consultation — Geographical indications from Georgia (Annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 40, 17.2.2010, p. 18) | 6 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2010/C 050/04

Information notice — Public consultation — Geographical indications from Georgia (Annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 40, 17.2.2010, p. 18)

(Annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 40, 17.2.2010, p. 18)

6

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN