alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. RA N D A LL K I EF W A RI N ER, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N os . 12- 30114 12- 30115 D . C . N o s . 3 : 1 1 - c r - 0 0 3 6 5 - MA 3 : 0 0 - c r - 0 0 1 1 0 - MA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M a l c ol m F . M a r s h, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B e f o r e : R A W L I N S O N , M U R G U I A , a n dW A T F O R D , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . R andal l K i ef

W ar i ner app ea l s f

rom the 24 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rb e in g af

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1), and the consecut i ve 24 -m on th sent ence 

# FI LED OC T 17 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 30114 & 12- 30115 2 i m pos e d upon r e voc a t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. W ar i ner c on t ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y f ai l i ng t o con si der a d e q u a te lyh is a r g u m e n ts in s u p p o rt o f atim e - s e rv e ds e n te n c e , a n db yf a ilin g to prov i de adequat e and fa ctual l y a cc urat e r ea sons for the se nt ence . T he di stri ctcourt a c know l e dge d W a r i ne r ’ s a r gum e nt s , di s c us s e d the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s , a nd e xpl a i ne d the r e a s ons f orthe s e nt e nc e . I t s f

a i l ur e t o do m or e w a s not p la in e rr o r . Se e U

ni te d States v . V

ale nc i a- B arr agan , 60 8 F . 3d 11 03 , 11 08 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) . M o r e o v e r , a n ye rr o rc o m m itte db yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith r e s p e c t to W ar i ner’ s hi st ory of s up ervi se d rel ea se vi ol at i on s di d n otaf fe ctthe se nt ence s e le c te d . Se e U

n ite d S ta tes v . Ca r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d9 8 4 , 9 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) . W a r in e ra ls o c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le in l i gh tof the m i no r nature of hi s l as tfi re arm po ss es si on offe nse, the abse nce of l aw e n f o r c e m e n t c o n ta c t s in c e h e ab s c o n d e df r o m s u p e rv is e dr e le a s e , a n dth e in ab ility of hi s pl ant s t o p rodu ce po t entm ar i j uana. U nd erthe t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s a n dth e s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f a c to r s , th e s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le . See G al l

v. U ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7). AF F I RME D.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TOSECTION 906**

**OF SARBANES – OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

The undersigned, Joseph J. Talley ChiefFinancial Officer of American Crystal Sugar Company, (the “Company”), doeshereby certify that:

 

1.    The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterended November 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.    Information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperation of the Company.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as a separate disclosure document.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has causedthis instrument to be executed this 14th day of January, 2005.

 
| By:    | /s/ Joseph J. Talley           |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Joseph J. Talley         |
|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |
|        |                                |        |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHANDLER ALEXANDER a/k/a

KELLIS JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY 

AND MOTOR VEHICLES,

Respondent.

No. 2D2023-1079

May 29, 2024

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth

Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County; sitting in its appellate capacity. 

Chandler Alexander a/k/a Kellis Jackson, pro se.

Kathy A. Jimenez-Morales, Chief Counsel, Driver Licenses, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed.

NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
H. R. 748

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To amend the Act that established the Keweenaw National Historical Park to

require the Secretary of the Interior to consider nominees of various local interests

in appointing members of the Keweenaw National Historical Park Advisory Commission.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. APPOINTMENTS TO KEWEENAW NATIONAL HISTORICAL

PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION.

Section 9(c)(1) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to establish the

Keweenaw National Historical Park, and for other purposes’’ (Public

Law 102–543; 16 U.S.C. 410yy–8(c)(1)) is amended by striking

‘‘from nominees’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘after consideration of nominees’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 102-76.5 What is the scope of this part?

The real property policies contained in this part apply to Federal agencies, including GSA's Public Buildings Service (PBS), operating under, or subject to, the authorities of the Administrator of General Services. The accessibility standards in subpart C of this part apply to Federal agencies and other entities whose facilities are subject to the Architectural Barriers Act.

[70 FR 67845, Nov. 8, 2005, as amended at 72 FR 5943, Feb. 8, 2007]
§ 102-74.160 What actions must Federal agencies take to promote energy conservation? Federal agencies must— ( a ) Turn off lights and equipment when not needed;
( b ) Not block or impede ventilation; and
( c ) Keep windows and other building accesses closed during the heating and cooling seasons.
MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNAL
CONTROL STRUCTURE RELATIVE TO THE SERVICING OF
AUTOMOBILE LOAN RECEIVABLES


The management of the Bank is responsible for establishing and maintaining 
the internal control structure.  In fulfilling this responsibility, 
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected 
benefits and related costs of control procedures.  The objectives of an 
internal control structure are to provide management with reasonable, but 
not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from 
unauthorized use or disposition, and that transactions are executed in 
accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit 
the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally 
accepted accounting principles.

We have performed an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Bank's 
internal control structure based on the criteria established in Internal 
Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring 
Organizations of the Treadway Commission ("COSO") relative to the servicing 
of automobile loan receivables owned by Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trusts
Series 1995-1, 1995-2, 1996-1, 1996-2, 1997-1, 1997-2, 1997-3 and 1997-4 
(collectively referred to as the "Trusts" herein) as of September 30, 1998, 
and we have determined that the Bank maintained an effective internal 
control structure over financial reporting relative to the servicing of 
automobile loan receivables owned by the Trusts as of September 30, 1998.

However, there are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any internal
control structure, including the possibility of human error and the 
circumvention or overriding of controls.  Accordingly, even an effective 
internal control structure can provide only reasonable assurance with 
respect to reliability of financial statements and safeguarding and 
management of assets.  Furthermore, the effectiveness of any internal 
control structure can change with changes in circumstances.



                                     					                                    
Kevin B. Cashen         Larry C. Cain	
Senior Vice President   Senior Vice President



                                     					                                    
George P. Clancy, Jr.     Stephen R. Halpin, Jr.
Executive Vice President  Executive Vice President and
                          Chief Financial Officer

November 18, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 642 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 642

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To redesignate the Federal building located at 701 South Santa Fe 
   Avenue in Compton, California, and known as the Compton Main Post 
    Office, as the ``Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 642

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To redesignate the Federal building located at 701 South Santa Fe 
   Avenue in Compton, California, and known as the Compton Main Post 
    Office, as the ``Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 701 South Santa Fe Avenue in 
Compton, California, and known as the Compton Main Post Office, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mervyn Malcolm 
Dymally Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 102-5.100 May we use home-to-work transportation for other than official purposes?

No, you may not use home-to-work transportation for other than official purposes. However, if your agency has prescribed rules for the incidental use of Government vehicles (as provided in 31 U.S.C. note), you may use the vehicle in accordance with those rules in connection with an existing home-to-work authorization.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket** Docket Number: F AA - 2013 - 0545 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM048AD

727 - 53 - 0149, R3 --- 11/2/89

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, (the
Report) of Allied Capital Corporation (the
Registrant), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof; I, Penni F. Roll, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, that:



|    |                                                                                                                                          
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements
    of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934, 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 Registrant.



| |                         
| | ------------------------
| | /s/ Penni F. Roll       
| |                         
| | Name:   Penni F. Roll   
| | Date:     August 5, 2005
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 1277 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 155

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Modification 110. 0 $ 9,350.0

0 $ 

### 0 $ 9,350.00 

### 44 $ 411,400.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in com pliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 411,400



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Cos ts:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warran ty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a signif icant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

a ircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### Thomas P. Stephens v. Ephraim Smith.

Filed November 21, 1894.

No. 5957.

Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain "Verdict: Review. The evidence examined, and *held*sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Error from the district court of Boone county. Tried below before Harrison, J.

*N. C.*Pratt, for plaintiff in error.

*James S. Armstrong*and *F. 8.*Howell, *contra.*

Irvine, C.

The only assignment of error in this case which is presented in the briefs is that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. No question of law is involved, and a statement or discussion of the facts would, therefore, be useless. An examination of the record persuades us that while the evidence on behalf of the defendant in error was neither conclusive nor very convincing, it was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.

Harrison, J., having presided in court below took no part in the decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             $22,291
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       20,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                          4,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    53,769
<PP&E>                                              42,822
<DEPRECIATION>                                      30,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      74,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               31,780
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               455
<OTHER-SE>                                          33,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        74,387
<SALES>                                             54,395
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    54,395
<CGS>                                               42,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       49,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      (951)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                           536
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  4,291
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         4,291
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .95
        


</TABLE>
#### AGNES WALSH, Appellant, *v.*THE FLATBUSH, NORTH SHORE AND CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.

*Settlement of action*— by *client, where attoi'ney is interested in the recovm-y*— effect *of, on rights of attorney.*

In this action, prosecuted under an agreement with plaintiff’s attorney, that he should receive one-half the recovery for his services, the defendant having no notice of such agreement, settled with the plaintiff before trial, *held,*that'the settlement was good as against the claim of the attorney, unless made by the defendant in bad faith, and that the defendant was entitled to an order discontinuing the action.

Appeal by plaintiff and her attorney from an order directing a discontinuance of this action, without costs.

*Daniel It. Lydd/y,*for the appellant.

*Edwa/rd E. /Sprague,*for the respondent.

Daniels, «T.:

The action was brought to recover damages sustained by reason of a personal injury. It was prosecuted under an agreement with the plaintiff’s attorney that he should receive one-half the recovery for his services and disbursements. Notice of the existence of the agreement was not given either to the defendant or its attorneys. The information given to the clerk of the attorney by the plaintiff as to her desire to send for her attorney was not evidence of the fact against the defendant. And besides that it was denied by one of the attorneys for the defendant, who swore that she positively declined to have her counsel present, as that was not deemed to be necessary. Notice, under this state of the proof, was not established. Neither was there any thing from which its existence could be inferred. In that respect there was a material difference between this case and that of *Coughlin*v. *New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Co.*(8 Hun, 136), for it appeared there that notice had been given to the defendant before the claim was settled. Without such *191notice, the plaintiff had the right to settle the case, even if by so doing she defeated the purpose of the agreement made between herself and her counsel. *(Shank*v. *Shoemaker,*18 N. T., 489; *Pulver*v. *Harris,*52 id., ; *Wade*v. *Orton,*12 Abb. [N. S.], 444.)

The case seems to be an unfortunate one for the counsel, but under the circumstances the corn! has no power to relieve him from the effect of the settlement made, unless he can show that it was the result of bad faith; and an opportunity to do that has been secured by the order made on the disposition of the motion.

The order should be affirmed, but, under the circumstances, costs should not be awarded against the counsel who has been deprived of the benefit of the agreement made with his client.

Davis, P. J., and Brady, J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs.
#### William R. Jones v. William A. Wolfe.

Filed October 16, 1894.

No. 5204.

After a bill of exceptions has been quasbed it can be considered for no further purpose in the case in which it was originally filed in this court.

Error from the district court of Gage county. Tried below before Broady, J.

*E. O. Kretsinger*and *Geo. B.*Everitt, for plaintiff in error.

*273
      *George A. Murphy, contra.*

Ryan, C.

On motion, the bill of exceptions in this case was quashed at the September term of this court, 1892. The questions argued pertained to matters of fact which render it necessary to resort to the bill of exceptions to determine what, if any, merit is involved. Counsel for plaintiff in error cite the cases of *Donavan v. Sherwin,*16 Neb., 130, *Scott v. Waldeck,*11 Neb., 525, and *City of Seward v. Klenk,*27 Neb., 615, in support of the proposition that a bill of exceptions, though quashed, may be examined to ascertain whether or not there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. One of the cases cited tends to sustain the view contended for, and yet it seems to us, upon full consideration of the matter, that this is wholly without warrant, for if the bill of exceptions is quashed, its contents, as showing what the evidence was, are no more matters for the consideration of this court than if there had been no attempt to evidence them by a bill of exceptions. In Webster’s International Dictionary the law definition of the word “quash” is given as “to abate, annul, overthrow, or make void; as, to quash an indictment.” By the ruling of this court quashing the bill of exceptions, it was rendered void; hence it can be consulted for no purpose connected with the further proceedings in the case. The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

Affirmed.