alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted October 31,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration November 29, 1995

#### GERALD LEE BEAGLE, *Petitioner, v.*BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, *Respondent.*

(CA A85762)

906 P2d 866

Alan H. Biedermann, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Robert K. Lau, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Hasel-ton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*182PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of a final order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) imposing, pursuant to ORS 144.085(l)(c), a period of supervised parole for pre-guidelines convictions extending from his release date to the expiration of his sentence. The Board lacked the authority to impose the sentence of supervised parole. *Fernandez v. Board of Parole,*137 Or App 247, 904 P2d 1071 (1995).

The state argues, however, that any error by the Board is harmless here, because petitioner must serve a term of *post-prison supervision,*for other post-guidelines convictions, and that that post-prison supervision extends beyond the period of supervised parole imposed in this case. Based on this record, and the arguments presented, however, we are unable to determine whether the Board’s error was harmless. The state may be correct that, ultimately, petitioner will be under supervision for the same, or a longer period of time. However, the state does not contend, and we cannot conclude that, in this case, all the ramifications of serving supervised probation for pre-guidelines convictions are the same as those related to serving post-prison supervision for post-guidelines convictions.1 Thus, we are unable to conclude that the Board’s error was harmless.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

1

 The record does not show, for example, whether or not any violation of supervised parole would pose a greater risk of incarceration, or incarceration for a longer time, than a violation of post-prison supervision.
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.384   Filed 01/09/17   Page 1 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.385   Filed 01/09/17   Page 2 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.386   Filed 01/09/17   Page 3 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.387   Filed 01/09/17   Page 4 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.388   Filed 01/09/17   Page 5 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.389   Filed 01/09/17   Page 6 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.390   Filed 01/09/17   Page 7 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.391   Filed 01/09/17   Page 8 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.392   Filed 01/09/17   Page 9 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.393   Filed 01/09/17   Page 10 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.394   Filed 01/09/17   Page 11 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.395   Filed 01/09/17   Page 12 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.396   Filed 01/09/17   Page 13 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.397   Filed 01/09/17   Page 14 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.398   Filed 01/09/17   Page 15 of 16

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-2, PageID.399   Filed 01/09/17   Page 16 of 16
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Craig A. Johnson, Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ Craig A. JohnsonCraig A. JohnsonVice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


May 1, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
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

The undersigned, Daniel Mckinney, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Asia Properties, Inc. hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the report on Form 10-Q of Asia Properties, Inc., for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Asia Properties, Inc..

Daniel Mckinney (Principal Executive Officer)Chief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer

---
#### Ayers, Weatherwax & Reid Co. v. Sundback, Sheriff.

The rules of this court provide that when a party through mistake or excusable neglect has made or consented to an abstract which is incorrect or imperfect, he may, upon a satisfactory showing, be allowed to file an additional abstract; but, *held,*that the excusing circumstances should be very exceptional, or the case of unusual importance, to justify the application of the rule after a case has been argued, submitted, and decided; and *held,*further, that this is not such a case.

(Syllabus by the Court.

Opinion filed May 3, 1894.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha county. Hon. Frank R. Aikens, Judge.

This case wTas first decided by this court in an opinion filed February 21, 1894, reported in 5 S. D. 31, 58 N. W. 4. In that opinion the judgment of the lower court was reversed.

Respondents petitioned for a rehearing and for leave to file a further abstract, which is in this opinion denied.

*Joe*Kirby, for appellant,

*J. W. Jones, (Boyce & Boyce*of counsel) for respondent.

Kellam, J.

Respondent asks to be allowed to reargue this case, which was decided at the last term, and reported in 5 S. D. 31, 58 N. W. 4, and to be further allowed'to file and serve an-additional abstract. Counsel does not attack the correctness of the decision upon the abstract upon which the case was heard, but represents in his petition that the abstract was incomplete, and that the bill of exceptions contained matter which, if it had gone into the abstract, would plainly have led *363to a different decision and judgment in this court. This is probably true, but we still think we ought to deny the petition. An abstract duly served, and by nonobjection consented to, is, in effect, stipulated to be correct. Our rules provide that when a party, through mistake or excusable neglect, has made or consented to an abstract which is incorrect or imperfect, he may, upon a satisfactory showing, be allowed to file an additional abstract; but the excusing circumstances should be exceptional, or the .case of unusual importance, to justify the application of the rule after a case has been argued, submitted, and decided. Such a practice would be so obviously undesirable that we are unwilling to establish a precedent which would suggest and encourage it. There is nothing peculiar or exceptional in this case, either in the circumstances under which the abstract was made or consented to, or the questions of law, or the interests involved. If we allow the application in this case we could hardly deny it in any. The practice would be a bad one, and we are unwilling to initiate it. The petition to file a further abstract and to reargue the case is denied.
October 4 , 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WILLIAM SATTERWHITE, JR. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 16

- 00060

- CV V.

STEVEN AKINS AND HOU STON PRESS, L.P. AND CRAI G MALISOW , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on D ecember 18, 2015. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appella nt, William Satterwhite, Jr. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-111774, 333-111560, 333-106664, 333-57856, 333-65317, 333-25827,
333-04745, and 333-64062) on Form S-8 of Humboldt Bancorp of our report dated
January 29, 2004, except for Note 25, which is as of March 13, 2004, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Humboldt Bancorp and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003
annual report on Form 10-K of Humboldt Bancorp. Such report reflects the
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 148, ACCOUNTING FOR
STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION, under the prospective method of adoption as of January
1, 2003.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Sacramento, California
March 26, 2004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 18 January 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion affecting the appearance of Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials.

                    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:                     *http://www.cfa.gov*. Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting.                

Dated in Washington, DC, 28 December 2006.

Thomas Luebke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 07-23 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
# C_2011362EN.01001801.xml

| 10.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/18

---

Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-507/11)

2011/C 362/26

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Abrar, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2011 in Case R 262/2005-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2011 in Case R 262/2005-1;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ for services in Class 35

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peek & Cloppenburg

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: another earlier sign, namely the company name ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’, which is valid in Germany

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the use of the subsequent mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ may not be prohibited and there is no right to prohibit use throughout Germany under Paragraph 12 of the Markengesetz (Law on Trade Marks), and infringement of the first part of the first sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal should have waited for a decision of the German Federal Court of Justice and the res judicata of a judgment in the German proceedings to have the trade mark removed from the register.

Pleas in law:

res judicata

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending March 25, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen deny i ng r el i ef , t he c our t m ay han d do w n an opi ni on b ut 1 i s n o t r e q u i re d to d o s o .”) ; T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 7 .4 (d i s ti n g u i s h i n g o p i n i o n s a n d m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n s ). 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0031 7-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG IN RE SCOGG INS CONS TRUCTION COM PA NY, I NC.

On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on 1 Rel ator , Sc og g ins C onst ru cti on Compan y , I nc. , fil ed a peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus in the abov e caus e on Ma y 20, 2008. Throug h thi s or ig ina l proceed ing , rela tor ch all eng es the t ri al cour

t’ s order of A pr il 2, 2008, deny ing re lat or ’s moti on for lea v e to j oin thi rd -p arty defendants and t o desig nate res ponsi ble thi rd par ti es. The C our

t req uest ed and re cei v ed a respon se from the re al par ty i n i nterest , M er cedes Inde pendentSc hool D is tr ic t.2

Ma ndamus is an e xtraordin ar y remedy , w hic h is av ail abl e only w hen a tr ial co urt has clearly abu sed its discretion and the relator lacks an ad equate reme dy by app eal. Se e In re Pru de n t

ia l In s . Co

. o f

A m. , 1 4 8 S. W .3 d 12 4 , 1 3 5 - 3 6 (T e x. 20 0 4 ) (o rig. pro ce e d in g) (ci ti n g W alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 8 33, 8 40 ( Tex . 199 2) ); see als o In r e TeamR ock

et, L.P. , 5 1 T e x. Su p . Ct . J . 9 4 5 , 2 0 0 8 T e x. LE XIS 50 1 , * 2 (T e x. Ma y 23 , 2 0 0 8 ) (o rig. proce edin g)

. The Cou rt , hav ing ex amined and fully cons ide re d the peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus and respon se thereto, is of the o pin ion thatrela tor has not show n its elf entit led to the reli ef soug ht. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 3 7, 38 ; In re Unitec Elevator Ser vs . C o. , 178 S.W .3d 5 3, 64 -6 6 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 5, or ig . proceed ing ); In re Martin , 147 S.W .3d 4 53, 4 58- 59 (Tex

. App.–B eaumont 2004, or ig . proceed ing ); In r e Ar thur Ander sen LLP , 121 S.W .3d 471, 485- 86 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2003, or ig . proceed ing ). Ac cordin g ly , t he peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus i s D EN IED

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8( a)

. PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 3 0th d ay

of June, 2008.
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with an Amendment to the Annual Report of Migo Software, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Richard Liebman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      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/
              Richard LiebmanRichard
              LiebmanChief
              Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)April 27, 2007
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending February 25, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### Moses May, *Respondent, v.*Isaac Lauterbach, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc*.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[House Report 107-67]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     107-67

======================================================================

 
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 622, HOPE FOR CHILDREN ACT

                                _______
                                

May 15, 2001.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Ms. Pryce of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 141]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 141, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution provides for consideration in the House of 
H.R. 622, the Hope for Children Act, under a closed rule. The 
rule provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill.
    The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the 
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be 
considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    The waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of 
clause 4(a) of rule XIII (requiring a three-day layover of the 
committee report) which is needed because the report was not 
filed until Tuesday, May 15, and the bill may be considered by 
the House as early as Wednesday, May 16.

                                

```