alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B E L L A G I O

Robert H. Baldwin
    President

December 1, 1999



Mr. Stephen A. Wynn
Chairman of the Board and
  Chief Executive Officer
Mirage Resorts, Incorporated
3600 Las Vegas Boulevard South
Las Vegas, Nevada  89109

  Re:    Amendment No. 6 to Fine Art Rental Agreement

Dear Steve:

Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the letter agreement dated
December 31, 1998 between Bellagio and you (the "Rental
Agreement"), this letter confirms our agreement that,
effective this date, the following work of fine art shall be
added to Exhibit A to the Rental Agreement for the following
monthly rent:

              Work                          Monthly Rent

     "Head of a Woman (Tete de Femme)"          $ 706
     by Henri Matisse (1950, brush and
     black ink on ivory wove arches
     paper,  20-3/4 x 16 inches)

Please sign below to confirm your agreement to the foregoing.
My signature below confirms Bellagio's agreement thereto.

Very truly yours,

BELLAGIO                     I hereby agree to the foregoing.


By: ROBERT H. BALDWIN                    STEPHEN A. WYNN
    -------------------            ---------------------------
    President and Chief                  STEPHEN A. WYNN
    Executive Officer

cc:  Bruce A. Levin          James E. Pettis
     Peter C. Walsh          George J. Panek

                P.O. BOX 7700, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89117-7700

                             Exhibit 10.71
Order filed November 1, 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00628

- CV

____________ In the Interest of J.M.F., Jr., a child

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 0434 6J

ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental termination appeal. Appellant’ s brief was due October 31, 2022

. No brief has been filed. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a)

. This accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines.
Therefore, we order appellant’s appointed counsel , William Leslie
Shirema n, to file appellant’s brief no later than November 10, 2022

. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. In addition, the court may require appointment of new
counsel due to the failure to ti mely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justic es Bourliot and Wilson.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00064-CR

MICHAEL SAVAGE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 158th District 

Court

of Denton County (F-2004-1443-B)

February 24, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial court is 

affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel _

 Justice Dabney Bassel
N OTE : This o rder is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE MERLE RICHARD SCHMID T,
Petitioner.

______________________

2014

- 101

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:12

- cv

- 00773

- SGB, Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________

ON PETI TION

______________________

Before R ADER
, C hief Judge , L OURIE and T ARANTO
, Circuit Judges

. P ER CURIAM

. O R D E R

Merle Richard Schmidt petitions for a writ of mand amus to compel the United States Court of Federal Claims to enter declaratory judgment. We consider whether Schmidt’s petition should be construed as a notice of appeal.

Schmidt filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a declaratory judgment that he is the owner of a plot of land in Iowa. On June 28, 2013, the Court of Feder al Claims entered judgment dismissing Case: 14-101 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2013IN RE SCHMIDT 2

Schmidt’s complaint for lack of juris diction . Schmidt then requested the Court of Federal Claims to vacate the order dismissing his complaint. On August 15, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims denied that motion. On O ctober 15, 2013, Schmidt filed this writ of mandamus , asking for the same relief he sought in the Court of Federal Claims and arguing the merits of his appeal

. In order to appeal a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the party seeking ap peal must file notice that sets forth (1) the name of each party to the proceeding, (2) the judgment, order, or part, thereof being appealed, and (3) the name of the court to which the appeal is taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Schmidt’s petition
meets these require ments. In addition, his petition is timely if treated as a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

W e conclude that the petition should be construed as

a timely notice of appeal, and thus mandamus relief is not appropriate. See Mallard v . U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa , 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (holding that a party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief, such as by appeal); Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland , 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1953) (stating “whatever may be done without the writ may not be done with it.”).

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied because the matter is treated as a timely notice of appeal

. The clerk is directed to docket the case as an appeal. Case: 14-101 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2013IN RE SCHMIDT 3

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Tool e Clerk of Court

s 24 Case: 14-101 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 12/12/2013
*

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1861

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Shawn Rogers, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2006

Filed: February 17, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Rogers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent

to distribute five hundred grams or more of methamphetamine. At his post-Booker

sentencing, Rogers moved for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 arguing

his criminal history was overstated. The district court*

 denied the motion and

sentenced Rogers at the low end of the guidelines range to 151 months in prison and

five years of supervised release. On appeal, Rogers contends the district court should

have granted his motion for a downward departure under § 4A1.3. 
-2-

Section 4A1.3(b)(1) provides a downward departure may be warranted if

reliable information shows a defendant’s criminal history category substantially

overrepresents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood

that the defendant will commit other crimes. Rogers contends his criminal history

category of IV substantially overrepresents the seriousness of his criminal history,

which includes a conviction for possession of marijuana, a conviction for issuing a

bad check, and two convictions for nonpayment of child support. 

At sentencing, the district court recognized Rogers had filed a motion for a

downward departure based on the overrepresentation of his criminal history. Rogers

declined to present evidence regarding his motion and relied on his argument that the

repeated nonsupport convictions caused his criminal history to be overrepresented.

After hearing argument, the district court stated that although there are more serious

offenses than nonpayment of child support, Rogers’s level of nonsupport indicated

a disregard for court orders and the justice system. The court also observed that

Rogers’s criminal history pattern indicated a need for rehabilitation to affect a change

of lifestyle. The district court clearly recognized its authority to depart and simply

chose not to do so. Under the circumstances, the district court’s refusal to depart is

not reviewable. United States v. Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005). 

We thus affirm the district court.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1


                                RAVEN GOLD CORP.
                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 Raven Gold Corp. on Form 10-KSB/A for
the year ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Blair Naughty, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Raven Gold Corp. and will be retained by Raven Gold Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                                     /s/ Blair Naughty
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Blair Naughty
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 13, 2007
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

AMY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5826FDB-KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Judge Karen

L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, and objections to the report and recommendation, if any,

and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) the ALJ erred in his decision as described in the report;

(3) the matter is therefore REVERSED and remanded to the Commissioner for further

administrative proceedings; and

(4) the Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff's counsel, defendant’s counsel

and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 18th day of July 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05826-FDB Document 21 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 1
III

Calendar No. 711

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 271

Designating October 16, 1998, as ‘‘National Mammography Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 3 (legislative day, AUGUST 31), 1998

Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr.

BAUCUS, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWNBACK,

Mr. BRYAN, Mr. BYRD, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr.

D’AMATO, Mr. DODD, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mrs.

FEINSTEIN, Mr. FORD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRAMM, Mr.

GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INOUYE,

Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERREY, Ms.

LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. MACK,

Mr. MCCAIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr.

MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROTH, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. TORRICELLI, and Mr. WELLSTONE) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

OCTOBER 8 (legislative day, OCTOBER 2), 1998

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

RESOLUTION

Designating October 16, 1998, as ‘‘National Mammography

Day’’.

Whereas according to the American Cancer Society, in 1998,

178,700 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and

43,500 women will die from this disease;
2

SRES 271 RS

Whereas in the decade of the 1990’s, it is estimated that

about 2,000,000 women will be diagnosed with breast

cancer, resulting in nearly 500,000 deaths;

Whereas the risk of breast cancer increases with age, with a

woman at age 70 having twice as much of a chance of

developing the disease as a woman at age 50;

Whereas at least 80 percent of the women who get breast

cancer have no family history of the disease;

Whereas mammograms, when operated professionally at a

certified facility, can provide a safe and quick diagnosis;

Whereas experts agree that mammography is the best method

of early detection of breast cancer, and early detection is

the key to saving lives;

Whereas mammograms can reveal the presence of small cancers up to 2 years or more before a regular clinical breast

examination or breast self-examination (BSE), reducing

mortality by more than 30 percent; and

Whereas 47 States and the District of Columbia have passed

legislation requiring health insurance companies to cover

mammograms in accordance with recognized screening

guidelines: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates October 16, 1998, as ‘‘National

3 Mammography Day’’; and

4 (2) requests that the President issue a procla5 mation calling upon the people of the United States

6 to observe such day with appropriate programs and

7 activities.

Calendar No. 711

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 271

RESOLUTION

Designating October 16, 1998, as ‘‘National

Mammography Day’’.

OCTOBER 8 (legislative day, OCTOBER 2), 1998

Reported without amendment
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10591

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY WAYNE GILMORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-255-1-A

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

December 6, 2001

Before DUHÉ, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Anthony Wayne Gilmore appeals from his guilty-plea conviction

of possession of more than 50 grams of a mixture containing cocaine

base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).

Gilmore contends that the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search to which

Gilmore apparently consented. A voluntary and unconditional guilty

plea waives an appellant’s right to challenge any nonjurisdictional

defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction. United

States v. Wise, 179 F.3d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 1999). This waiver is

applicable to Fourth Amendment claims. See id. In any event,
2

Gilmore has fallen far short of demonstrating that the district

court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress,

without a hearing, on the ground that his supporting allegations

were conclusory. See United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 737

(5th Cir. 1983).

Gilmore also argues that the district court erred in denying

his motion for a continuance on the day of sentencing. Gilmore

maintains that his roommate at the trailer where the drugs were

found provided an affidavit “tend[ing] to exonerate” him, Gilmore.

Gilmore has not established that the district court abused its

discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. See United

States v. Peden, 891 F.2d 514, 519 (5th Cir. 1989). 

The conviction and sentence are 

AFFIRMED.
# Official Journal C 126/25 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 126 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4825 May 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 126

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4825 May 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 126/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 126/2 | Information procedure — Technical rules (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2005/C 126/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3814 — RR Donnelley/Astron) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 8 |
| 2005/C 126/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3797 — CGE/AMGA/SMAT/SAP) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 9 |
| 2005/C 126/5 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2005/C 126/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3815 — 3i Group/Carema) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 13 |
| 2005/C 126/7 | Publication of an application for registration pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin | 14 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 126/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 126/2

Information procedure — Technical rules (
  1
  )

1

2

2005/C 126/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3814 — RR Donnelley/Astron) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

8

2005/C 126/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3797 — CGE/AMGA/SMAT/SAP) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

9

2005/C 126/5

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

10

2005/C 126/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3815 — 3i Group/Carema) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

13

2005/C 126/7

Publication of an application for registration pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin

14

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | European Parliament |
| 2005/C 126/8 | Decision | 18 |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 126/9 | Call for proposals in the field of Community cooperation against accidental or deliberate marine pollution | 19 |
| 2005/C 126/10 | Call for Proposals — eLearning Programme — DG EAC/23/05 | 20 |

III   Notices

European Parliament

2005/C 126/8

Decision

18

Commission

2005/C 126/9

Call for proposals in the field of Community cooperation against accidental or deliberate marine pollution

19

2005/C 126/10

Call for Proposals — eLearning Programme — DG EAC/23/05

e

20

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of the President and Chief Executive Officer

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
Report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the Bank) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Gilleran,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2007                 
|/s/  James E. Gilleran               
|James E. Gilleran                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
```

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Paramount Acquisition Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: March 31, 2006                  /s/ J. Jay Lobell
                                      -----------------
                                      Name: J. Jay Lobell
                                      Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                               (Principal Executive Officer and
                                               Principal Accounting and
                                               Financial Officer)
```
EXHIBIT 32.1






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. § 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), Ross Lavnikevich and Rafael
Abdurachmanov, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
respectively, of iGenii, Inc, certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2009 of iGenii, Inc fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of iGenii, Inc as of the dates
presented and the results of operations of iGenii, Inc for the periods
presented.
 
 
 
 /s/ Ross Lavnikevich
 Ross
Lavnikevich,
 Chief
Executive Officer
  
 
 
 /s/ Rafael Abdurachmanov
 Rafael
Abdurachmanov,
 Chief
Financial Officer
  Date:
April 13, 2010
 
 
 
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K
or as a separate disclosure document.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
iGenii, Inc and will be retained by iGenii, Inc and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.