alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 14, 1951

No. 55563.

Suit 4659.

#### United States *v.*American Whaling Company, Inc.

D. 1256 affirmed March 30, 1951. C. A. D. 454.
Motions Denied; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 31, 

2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00511-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A.A., L.A., L.A., AND R.A., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 328th District Court 

Fort Bend County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 16-DCV-237456A 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant R.M. attempts to appeal the Order for Monitored Return signed by the 

trial court on May 24, 2018. An order for monitored return is interlocutory and not 

appealable. In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 348 S.W.3d 492, 498 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2011, orig. proceeding). 

On June 28, 2018, this court notified the parties of its intention to dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless a response was filed showing meritorious 

grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed two 

motions on July 6, 2018: (1) a motion for extension of time to file her notice of 

appeal, and (2) a motion to reinstate, which we construe as a response to our 
2

dismissal notice. 

The motion to reinstate states in relevant part: 

I am requesting that the following cases be placed on the docket 

because this case is with 14-18-00509-CV. There should not be a case 

in the courts for me. So I am requesting both cases to be viewed so both 

can be dismissed and disposed of. Both cases are public corruption 

cases. . . . [A]nd no abuse occurred. 

Appellant’s motion refers to her other appeal pending in this court, No. 14-

18-00509-CV. That appeal involves another of appellant’s children, C.F., Jr., and is 

from a judgment entitled, “Final Order in Suit Affecting the Parent Child 

Relationship.” Such a judgment is appealable. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002. 

However, the appealability of the final order in appeal 14-18-00509-CV is 

immaterial to the appealability of the order for monitored return in this appeal. 

This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s motion to 

reinstate and her motion for extension of time to file her notice of appeal are 

DENIED AS MOOT.

Appeal number 14-18-00509-CV remains pending. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


     The weighted average number of shares outstanding includes all 585,124
shares issued and outstanding.

<TABLE>
 
<S>                                                              <C>
Net income for the period from June 30, 1997 to June 30, 1998    $  8,300
 
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                     585,124
 
Earnings per share                                               $   0.01
</TABLE>

Earnings per share is not significant for the year ended June 30, 1998.  Common
stock was not issued or outstanding prior to the conversion date of June 19,
1998.
## 2000 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-18-2000 

# S o c iet y H i l l T

o we rs O wne rs ' As s n. v

. Re ndel l

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :
D ock e t 98-1937

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2000

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2000 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S oc ie t y H i l l T

o w e r s O w ne r s ' As s n . v

. R e nde l l " (2000). 2000 D e cisio n s
. P ape r 82. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2000/82

### Filed April 18, 2000

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 98-1937

SOCIETY HILL TOWERS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, ROBERT D. GREENBAUM; ZOE COULSON; JOHN Q. LAWSON; JEREMY SIEGEL; PENELOPE H. BATCHELER; GRAY SMITH; ROXANNE GALEOTA,
Appellants

v.
EDWARD G. RENDELL, Mayor of the City of Philadelphi a; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; ANDREW M. CUOMO, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. Civil No. 96-cv-04778) District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
Before: ALITO, McKEE, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARTZ, Senior District Judge*

ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Slip Opinionfiled in this case on April 17, 2000, be amended as follows:

___________________________________________________ ______________ * The Honorable Murray M. Schwartz, Senior District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation.

### At line 4 on page 9 of the opinion delete th e apostrophe

on "Residents' " appearing between "the" and "had.";
At line 12 on page 12 of the opinion change lower case "landing" to uppercase "Landing" after"Penn' s."

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,
/s/ Theodore A. McKee Circuit Judge
DATED: April 18, 2000

A True Copy: Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS FOR
PRESTOLITE ELECTRIC HOLDING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001057053
<NAME> PRESTOLITE ELECTRIC HOLDING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             896
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,615
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,338)
<INVENTORY>                                     52,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,750
<PP&E>                                          86,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (30,931)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,087
<BONDS>                                        133,565
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   188,147
<SALES>                                        282,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               282,801
<CGS>                                          224,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  263,209
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,615
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,350
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,845
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,505
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,275
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       230
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE AND CONSENT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders DaimlerChrysler AG:

The audits of DaimlerChrysler AG and subsidiaries ("DaimlerChrysler") referred
to in our qualified report dated February 14, 2000, included the related
financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1999, as contained in the DaimlerChrysler Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 1999. The financial statement schedule
is the responsibility of DaimlerChrysler's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on the financial statement schedule based on our audits. In
our opinion, based on our audits and the report of other auditors, such
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.

Our auditors' report referred to above contains a qualification as a result of a
departure from United States generally accepted accounting principles for
DaimlerChrysler's accounting for a material joint venture in 1998 and 1997 in
accordance with the proportionate method of consolidation. In our opinion,
United States generally accepted accounting principles required that such joint
venture be accounted for using the equity method of accounting.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
F-3 (No. 333-11306) of DaimlerChrysler North America Holding Corporation, the
registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-5074, 333-7082 and 333-8998) of
DaimlerChrysler AG, and the registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-71169
and 333-92583) of Chrysler Financial Company L.L.C. of our report dated February
14, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of DaimlerChrysler as of
December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1999, and related financial statement
schedule. Such consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance
with United States generally accepted accounting principles except for the use
of the proportionate method of consolidation in 1998 and 1997 with respect to a
material joint venture, as discussed above. Our report with respect thereto
appears in the DaimlerChrysler Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 1999, and was based in part on the report of other auditors.


                                          KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft AG

Stuttgart
February 25, 2000
Exhibit 32.1


                     WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada (the "Company")
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(a)    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
       ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of
       Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)    the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company.


                               /s/ Donald R. Mayer
Date:   11-7-05                ____________________________________
                               Donald R. Mayer
                               Principal Executive Officer
                               Principal Financial Officer
No. 48766.

#### Protest 722719-G (A) of Charles Happel (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The only witness stated that these hats consist of “8-bu” natural color paper hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith the claim at only 25 percent was sustained as to these items only.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Waste Connections, Inc. listed below of our report dated February 11, 2008
relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which
appears in this Form 10-K:





Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-42096) pertaining to the Second Amended and Restated
1997 Stock Option Plan of Waste Connections, Inc.;





Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-72113) pertaining to the First Amended and Restated
1997 Stock Option Plan of Waste Connections, Inc.;





Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-63407) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Option Plan of
Waste Connections, Inc.;





Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-83172) pertaining to the 2002 Stock Option Plan and
2002 Senior Management Equity Incentive Plan of Waste Connections,
Inc.;





Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90810) pertaining to the 2002 Restricted Stock
Plan;





Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-102413) pertaining to the Consultant Incentive
Plan;





Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-117764) pertaining to the 2004 Equity Incentive
Plan;





Registration
Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-65615);





Registration
Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-83825);





Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-87269); and





Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-134050).

















/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Sacramento,
California


February
11, 2008
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, H. Douglas Chaffin, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted
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.


/s/ H. Douglas Chaffin
-------------------------------------
H. Douglas Chaffin
Chief Executive Officer
August 7, 2007
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 15, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00416

- CV

Kimi

- Lyn MURRAY, Appellant

v.
Phillip MURRAY, Appellee

From t he 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 19449 The Honorable Monique Diaz , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 10, 2021, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing that either: (1) the notice of appeal filing fee has been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the filing fee. On November 12, 2021, appellant filed written proof that she is entitled to appeal without paying the filing fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(b)(1). Acco rdingly, we retain this appeal on the docket.

The reporter’s record is now due. We ORDER the court reporter to file the reporter’s record in this court by November 29, 2021

.

__________ _______________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of November, 2021

.

_________ __________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
No. 74-333.

#### United States *v.*Cooks.

C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pau-peris*granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2756

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jessie Robinson, also known as Lil Jessie

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: March 23, 2016

Filed: March 28, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

JessieRobinson appeals after imposition ofsentence by the district court upon 1

his guilty plea to a drug conspiracy charge. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and in

The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Eastern District of Arkansas.
a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that the

sentence, which represents a variance above the calculated Guidelines range, is

unreasonable. In a supplemental brief, Robinson argues that the court abused its

discretion by varying upward without explanation, and without discussing the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

After careful review, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8thCir.

2002) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision), we conclude that the

district court committed no procedural error, and that the sentence is not substantively

unreasonable. The court entertained written and oral arguments--and engaged in an

interactive discussion with counsel, and with Robinson--on an appropriate sentence. 

The court emphasized the need to protect the public from Robinson’s future crimes,

and to deter him from further criminal activity. The court noted that Robinson’s

behavior was inconsistent with his professed desire to be productive and care for his

son; and the court expressed great concern over Robinson’s history of irresponsible

and violent behavior, and his recidivism. We conclude that the district court provided

a detailed, careful, and reasoned explanation for the upward variance, relying on

relevant factors under section 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v.

Jordan, 573 F.3d 586, 590 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (where court makes

individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing defendant’s proffered

information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable);

Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461-62 (appeals court takes into account totality of

circumstances, and considers extent of deviation, but must give due deference to

district court’s decision that § 3553(a) factors as a whole justify extent of variance).

Having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and deny the motions for appointment of new counsel. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
# C_2014052EN.01003401.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2014 — Stols v Council

(Case T-95/12) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2007 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the interested party to grade AST 11 - Comparison of merits - Review by the court of the manifest error of assessment)

2014/C 52/61

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) on 13 December 2011 in Case F-51/08 RENV, not yet published, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Willem Stols to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the context the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Willem Stols to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the context the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

1

---
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.
 Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration
 Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Office on (301) 443-1129. The following request has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: Proposed Project: The Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program Regulations (OMB No. 0915-0108): Extension The Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program has regulations that contain notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements to insure that the lenders, holders and schools participating in the HEAL program follow sound management procedures in the administration of federally-insured student loans. While the regulatory requirements are approved under the OMB number referenced above, much of the burden associated with the regulations is cleared under the OMB numbers for the HEAL forms and electronic submissions used to report required information. The table listed at the end of this notice contains the estimate of burden for the remaining regulations. The estimates of burden are as follows: Number of 
                             respondents
Number of transactions
Total 
                             transactions
Hours per 
                             response  
                             (minutes)
Total burden hours**Reporting Requirements**17 Holders
5
78
12
17190 Schools
.4
76
10
13Total Reporting



30**Notification Requirements**7,930 Borrowers
1
7,930
10
1,32217 Holders
7,910
134,470
10
22,412190 Schools
.89
170
14
40Total Notification



23,774( print page 970)**Recordkeeping Requirements**17 Holders
3,568
60,656
14
14,153190 Schools
257
48,830
15
12,208Total Recordkeeping



26,361Total



50,165
 Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Karen Matsuoka, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Dated: December 28, 2006. Caroline Lewis, Acting Associate Administrator for Administration and Financial Management.


[FR Doc. E7-94 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P