alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern *

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1725WM

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Carlus L. Phillips, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: March 10, 1998

Filed: March 18, 1998

_____________

Before McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge. *

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Carlus L. Philips pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On

appeal, Phillips contends the district court improperly rejected his request to withdraw

his guilty plea. We disagree. Having reviewed the record, we conclude Phillips failed

to carry his burden to establish a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea and the

district court's ruling was not an abuse of discretion. The court will not consider
-2-

Phillips ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. These claims are best

presented on motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Ron. Joe Beatg

CountyAuditor Stephens County Breckenrldge, Texas
Dear SFr: Opinion ~6. 0-6240 Re: Is office of county commFssioner vacated because such commlssloner also accepts private emplogment?
Your original opinion request and also your letter supplyingadditional Informationhave been received in this office. The question submittedby you is, in substance,as follows:

Can county commissionerhold office and receive compensation from countywhile also being privately employed for servfceswithout the scope of his officialduty on job requiring approximately eight hours of his time per day, and drawing a regular salary for such private employment? "In otherwords can he legally hold two jobsat the same time?'
We believe the sole question raised by your communication iswhether such county commissioner vacated hls officeby reason of his employment inprivate business. There Is not presented thereby the question of simultaneoustenure of more than one "civ11office of emolument" for the primary reason that there is only one "publicoffice" involved. FOP the same reason, the question of "%ncompatibilitgof offices"isnot presented. The other employment of such commissioner is of a private nature only and does not constitute holding "office". See "PublicOfficers", 34 Texas Zurisprudence.

Under well settled principles of law,we must presume, In the absence of facts to the contrary, that the county commissioner In question is discharging the duties of the office of county commissioner in a lawful manner.

Therefore, from the facts submitted,we belleve that the private employment of a county commissionerwould not of itself constitute abandonment of his office so as to createaHon. Joe Beaty, page 2 O-6240

vacancy thereof. Our specificanswer to your question, restricted to the facts stated and assumed, is in the affirmative. Trusting the foregoing fully answers your questionwe are

, Yours very truly ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS

By s/RobertL. Lattimore, Jr. Robert L. Lattimore, Jr.

Assistant
RLL:rt:wc

APPROW NOV 8, 1944 s/Grover Sellers ATTORNFX GENWAL OF TEXAS Approve Opinion CommitteeBy s/BWR Chairman
§ 1177.33 Prompt referral. ( a ) NEH will promptly refer to DOJ for litigation any debts on which it has taken aggressive collection activity in accordance with subpart B of this part and that it cannot compromise, or on which it cannot suspend or terminate collection activity, in accordance with subparts C and D of this part. NEH may refer those debts arising out of its activities, or that were referred or transferred to it for collection services. NEH will refer debts for which the principal amount is over $1,000,000, or such other amount as the Attorney General my direct, exclusive of interest and penalties, to the Civil Division or other division responsible for litigating such debts at DOJ, Washington, DC. NEH will refer debts for which the principal amount is $1,000,000 or less, or such other amount as the Attorney General may direct, exclusive of interest or penalties, to DOJ's Nationwide Central Intake Facility as required by the CCLR instructions. NEH will refer debts as early as possible, consistent with aggressive agency collection activity and the standards contained in this part, and, in any event, well within the period for initiating timely lawsuits against the debtors. NEH will make every effort to refer delinquent debts to DOJ for litigation within one year of the date that such debts last became delinquent.
( b ) DOJ has exclusive jurisdiction over the debts NEH refers to it, pursuant to this section. As the referring agency, NEH will immediately terminate its administrative debt collection activities at the time it refers the debt to the DOJ. NEH will advise DOJ of the collection activities it has utilized to date, and their result. NEH will refrain from having any contact with the debtor and shall direct all debtor inquiries concerning the debt to DOJ. NEH will immediately notify DOJ of any payments it credited to the debtor's account after it referred a debt under this section. DOJ will notify NEH, in a timely manner, of any payments it receives from the debtor.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Robinson, Anthony, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Citiwide Auto Leasing, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Palmieri, Castiglione &amp; Nightingale, P.C. (Michael S. Nightingale, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered July 21, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that the claims at issue had been untimely submitted (<i>see</i> 11 NYCRR ยง 65-1.1). </p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the proof it submitted in opposition to defendant's motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the claims at issue had been timely mailed, as the affidavit of plaintiff's principal does not state that the claims were sent to defendant.</p><p>In light of the foregoing, plaintiff's remaining arguments are academic.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur. </p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: September 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Case 16-30502 Doc 7 Filed 09/26/16 Entered 09/26/16 17:16:48 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-30502 Doc 7 Filed 09/26/16 Entered 09/26/16 17:16:48 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
No. 99-50716 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50716 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN JARAMILLO; JOSÉ LUIS JARAMILLO, Defendants-Appellants.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-98-CR-275-2

-------------------- July 3, 2000 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan and José Luis Jaramillo appeal their convictions on various drug-trafficking charges. Each contends solely that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support both defendants’ convictions. See United States v. Gourley , 168 F.3d 165, 168-69 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 120 S. Ct. 72 (1999).
AFFIRMED.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION f 

SECOND SESSION { 

Convened January 3, 1991 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Thursday, February 28, 1991 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WALTER J. STEWART, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett. Executive Clerk 
1 

TREATIES 

Calendar Treaty Subject Reported 

No. Doc. No. Bv 

1 EX. B., Two Related Protocols to the Convention for Feb 5 91 Reported favorably 

95-1 the Unification of Certain Rules Relating by Mr. Pell, Committee on 

to International Carriage by Air, as Foreign Relations, with a 

Amended (Montreal Aviation Protocols No. 3 resolution of advice and 

and 4). consent to ratification 

with provisos. {Printed 

report--Ex. Rept. 102-1 

together with minority 

views).
Exhibit 4.7

Innovative Software Technologies, Inc.

December 31, 2001

Iwasaka Investments Limited
11 Duddel Street, 12th Floor
Central, Hong Kong

Dear Sir:

RE: Amendment to Finance Agreement Dated January 25, 2001

We are requesting approval for issuance of 350,000 shares of INIV Series A
Preferred Stock and 700,000 shares of INIV Common Stock in exchange for all
shares of INIV Common Stock previously issued to Iwasaka Investments, Limited.
The dollar amount invested was $700,000 as of December 31, 2001.

The 350,000 shares of INIV Series A Preferred Stock will be issued to Glendower
Holdings, Ltd, 36 Hilgrove Street, St. Helier, Jersey JE4 8TR, Channel Islands,
additionally the 700,000 shares of INIV Common Stock will be issued to Ripley
Associates Limited, Level 23, CD Tower, 313 Silom Road, Bangkok, 10500 Thailand
as you have requested.

The remaining capital to be invested in Innovative Software Technologies, Inc.
will be at a conversion price of $.50 per share.

In addition we are requesting the approval of the issuance of 3,529,412 INIV
Common shares and 1,500,000 Shares of Series A Preferred for the acquisition of
Energy Professional Marketing Group, Inc. As of December 31, 2001, Douglas Shane
Hackett CEO has converted $248,490.50 to 248,491 shares of INIV Series A
Preferred shares.

Enclosed you will find a copy of the Board of Directors Consent and the letter
to the transfer agent for the issuance of the stock for your review. Please sign
the line below and forward to us at the above address.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions on this
please call me at 1-816-584-8030.

Sincerely,

/s/ Douglas Shane Hackett
Douglas Shane Hackett
President

Accepted and agreed to by /s/ M. Yussuf              CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
                         ------------------------    REQUESTED BY INNOVATIVE
Iwasaka Investments Limited                          SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

112 N.W. Parkway Riverside, MO 64150 816-584-8030 voice 816-584-0324 fax
www.ist-co.com
# EUR-Lex - 12006E268 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E268

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Five - Institutions of the Community - TITLE II - Financial provisions - Article 268 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0163 - 0163 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0140 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0287 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0070 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 268

All items of revenue and expenditure of the Community, including those relating to the European Social Fund, shall be included in estimates to be drawn up for each financial year and shall be shown in the budget.

Administrative expenditure occasioned for the institutions by the provisions of the Treaty on European Union relating to common foreign and security policy and to cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs shall be charged to the budget. The operational expenditure occasioned by the implementation of the said provisions may, under the conditions referred to therein, be charged to the budget.

The revenue and expenditure shown in the budget shall be in balance.

--------------------------------------------------
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS 

Convened January 3, 1989 

FIRST SESSION { 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Thursday, February 2, 1989 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WALTER J.STEWART, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
1 
2 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK IN THE COAST GUARD 

Coast Guard nominations beginning Henry E. Plimack, and ending Malcolm B. Playfair, which 

nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 3, 

1989. 

Coast Guard nominations beginning Stephen D. Hathaway, and ending Robert C. Hayden, which 

nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 3, 

1989. 

Coast Guard nominations beginning Phillip D. Miller, and ending Steven R. Godfrey, which 

nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 3, 

1989. 

Coast Guard nominations beginning Wendy Abrisz, and ending Lawrence J. Zacher, which 

nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 3, 

1989.
Argued March 29,

decided April 4, 1911.

#### STATE ex rel. *v.*WEBSTER.

[114 Pac. 932.]

Appeal and Error — Dismissal — Want of Actual Controversy — Expiration of Term of Office.

In a proceeding by mandamus, requiring a county judge to render a verified statement to the county auditor of the amount due him for services each month since July, 1906, and to set out in detail the time he was absent from his office during that period other than on official business, as required by Section 3059, L. O. L., or to show cause why he should not do so, it appeared, on appeal from a dismissal of the cause, that the judge had resigned his office in May, 1910. *Held,*that as the controversy was at an end, and the conditions had so changed that any judgment rendered upon the appeal could not be made effective, the court would dismiss the appeal.

From Multnomah: Earl C. Bronaugh, Judge.

Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Eakin.

This is a proceeding upon a writ of mandamus issued upon the relation of H. C. King, requiring the defendant, Lionel R. Webster, county judge of Multnomah County, to render a verified statement to the county auditor of the amount due him for services each month since July 1, 1906, and to set out in detail the time he was absent from his office during that period, other than on official business, as required by Section 3059, L. O. L., or show cause why he should not be required to do so. A demurrer to the writ was sustained by the circuit court, and the cause dismissed. Plaintiff appeals. .

Dismissed.

For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by *Mr. H. C. King.*

For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by *Mr. Zera Snow.*

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Eakin.

It appears that the defendant resigned from the office of county judge in May, 1910, at which time he ceased to exercise the office or act as county judge of Multnomah County;' and Section 3059, if applicable to county judges, *377which we do not decide, is *functus officio*as to duties required of defendant during the time he exercised the office. The controversy is at an end. The conditions have so changed that any judgment rendered upon this appeal could not be made effective: *State ex rel.*v. *Grand Jury,*37 Or. 542 (62 Pac. 208); *Moores*v. Moores, 36 Or. 261 (59 Pac. 327); *State ex rel.*v. *Fields,*53 Or. 453 (101 Pac. 218). Therefore this court will not determine the question suggested.

The appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**In connection with the Quarterly Report of EUPA International Corporation (the “Corporation”) onForm 10-QSB/A (No. 1) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kun-Chieh Huang, Chief Financial Officer of theCorporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.         /s/ Kung-Chieh Huang   Kung-Chieh Huang   Chief Financial Officer   March 10,2006
23
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 Annual Report of iTech Medical, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Warren G. Baker, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





1.           The Annual 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 this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: April 15, 2011

/s/  Warren G. BakerWarren G. BakerChief Executive Officer
SERVED; JANUARY 5, 2011 

THANSPORTAilON 

n\l M -b p I: ~sq 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. |TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Case) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-1122 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On October 20, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed 

a Complaint. On October 13, 2011, Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. ("Respondent") had 

filed a Rcqnesl for Hearing. On December 19, 2011. Respondent notified Complainant 

that it had filed a withdrawal of its request for hearing, stating that the parties had reached 

a settlement of the matter. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and 
2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Ricliard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachments - Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-2011-1122 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

•Washington, DC 20591 

Attention. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Jennifer E. Trock, Respondent's Counselor 

Piilsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

2300 N Street, NW 

Washington, D.C.20037-1122 

TEL: 202-663-8000 

FAX: 202-663-8007 

Annjenet Chennault 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW-7E4, AC 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 MeachamBlvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5071 

FAX: 817-222-5092/5946 

The Honorable Richard'G: Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Sen'ice was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use tiie following address: 

Federal Aviation Adininislration, 600 Independence Avenue. S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1()00, Washington. DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
[No. 1373.]

#### Maloney v. Crow.

*Appeal from the District Court of El Paso County.*

Messrs. Bicksler & McLean and Mr. Frank McLaughlin, for appellant.

Mr. John W. Sleeper and Mr. George M. Irwin, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The questions involved in this case are the same as those determined in *Maloney v.*Love, ante, p. 288, and counsel have stipulated that the same disposition shall be made of both cases.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
#### § 72.71 Information collection.

The information collection requirements contained in § 72.72 have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and assigned clearance number 1024-0048. The information is being collected to determine whether to approve a grant recipient's request to convert an assisted site or facility to other than public recreation uses. The information will be used to assure that the requirements of section 1010 of the UPARR Act would be met should the proposed conversion be implemented. Response is required in order to obtain the benefit of Department of the Interior approval.
```

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 203 (Friday, October 20, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62013-62014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8794]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Mobile Enterprise Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 2006, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative

[[Page 62014]]

Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the 
Act''), Mobile Enterprise Alliance, Inc. has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 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, Aeroprise, Inc., 
Mountain View, CA; Antenna Software, Jersey City, NJ; Mobile and RFID 
Data Systems, Inc., Markham, Ontario, CANADA; Cingular Wireless LLC, 
Atlanta, GA; and Sprint Nextel Corporation, Shawnee Mission, KS have 
withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Mobile Enterprise Alliance, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On June 24, 2004, Mobile Enterprise Alliance, Inc. 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 23, 2004 (69 FR 44062).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 16, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on June 8, 2006 (71 FR 33314).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 06-8794 Filed 10-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```
#### § 1170.2 Application.

This part applies to each recipient of Federal financial assistance from the National Endowment for the Humanities and to each program or activity that receives such assistance.

[46 FR 55897, Nov. 12, 1981, as amended at 68 FR 51386, Aug. 26, 2003]