alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30610

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENNY RAY COLLINS, also known as Chop Collins,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CR-30010-17

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

February 19, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Benny Ray Collins, federal prisoner # 09912-035, appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion to take judicial notice of

facts under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1). Collins’s motion stems from

his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent

to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride for

which he received a 151-month sentence. He did not appeal his

sentence. The present motion asserts that his case should be

remanded for resentencing and his sentence should be reduced
No. 02-30610

-2-

because two of his prior convictions should have been excluded

from the guideline sentencing computations. 

Collins’s motion was not authorized by 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(f)(1), which permits an appellate court to remand a case

on direct appeal for further sentencing proceedings when it is

determined that a sentence “was imposed in violation of law or

imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing

guidelines.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1). Collins’s motion should

have been denied for lack of jurisdiction, United States v.

Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994), and we affirm on that

basis.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
                        --------------------------------

I, Charles K. Barbo, President and Chief Executive Officer of Shurgard Storage
Centers, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period ended
     December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  May 20, 2003

/s/ Charles K. Barbo

Charles K. Barbo
President, Chief Executive Officer
No. 00-6119.

#### Roberts *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Micro Cap Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| December 2, 2008 | /s/Michael G. Clark                               |
|------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|             | Michael G. Clark                                  |
|             | President                                         |
|             | DWS Micro Cap Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds |

 

 

 

 

**Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Paul Schubert, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Micro Cap Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or § 15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| December 2, 2008 | /s/Paul Schubert                                  |
|------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|             | Paul Schubert                                     |
|             | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer             |
|             | DWS Micro Cap Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

THOMAS WOLFE and 

MELISSA SNYDER, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CITY OF SUNBURY and 

JEFFREY WOJCIECHOWSKI, 

 Defendants. 

 No. 4:24-CV-00251 

 (Chief Judge Brann) 

 

ORDER 

DECEMBER 5, 2024 

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ motion to strike and motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) is 

DENIED in part and GRANTED in part: 

a. The motion to strike is DENIED; 

b. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice with respect 

to Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims against the City of 

Sunbury; and 

c. The motion to dismiss is otherwise GRANTED without 

prejudice. 

Case 4:24-cv-00251-MWB Document 35 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

2. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend within twenty-one (21) days from 

the date of this Order. If no second amended complaint is filed by that 

date, the action will be subject to dismissal with prejudice. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:24-cv-00251-MWB Document 35 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 2
OPEN FILE REPORT 79-857

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Sources

1975, The Times Atlas of the World, Comprehensive Edition:
New York, Quadrangle, plates 101 and 113, scale 1:5,000,000.

Alpha, Tau Rho, and Swenson, Phyllis, 1978, Equal-area base map
of Alaska and Northeast Siberia: U.S. Geological Survey Open File
Report 78-8, scale 1:5,000,000.

Circum-Pacifiec Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, 1977,
Geographic map of the Circum-Pacific Region, Northwest Quadrant:
Tulsa, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, scale
1:10,000,000.

Schumacher Glenn M., 1976, Bathymetric map of the Gulf of Alaska:
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 76-822, scale 1:2,500,000,
sheet 1.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Survey, Nov. 13, 1976, International
Chart Series, INT 500: Washington, D.C., National Ocean Survey,
scale 1:3,500,000.

Mar. 19, 1977, International Chart Series INT 50: Washington,
D.C., National Ocean Survey, scale 1:10,000,000.

Albers .qual-area conic projection based
on standard parallels 60°N and 45°N

Onshore data from:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 1970,
The National Atlas of the United States of America: U.S.
Geological Survey, 417p.

Scale 1:5,000,000

160°W 1s0°W Contour interval 1000 meters (with 200 and 500 meter contours added)
50 oO 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers
HAA i= Offshore sounding data not velocity corrected
2 = = 0 190 = nee ue ae SRE Mss Ticks show direction of slope
50 ° 50 00 150 200 250 300 Nautical Miles
(=—= m= i i 5 T |

EQUAL- AREA BASE MAP OF THE NORTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN

ALBERS EQUAL- AREA PROJECTION

U.S. Geological Survey
Open File Report

This map is preliminary and has
not been edited or reviewed for
conformity with Geological Survey
standards and nomenclature.

COMPILED BY MARYBETH GERIN AND ANDREW J. STEVENSON

I979
#### CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, INC. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Ethan P. WOODARD and Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 44578.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 9, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### Roger R. HAMM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1682.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 9, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Charles D. Peters, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

CROSS, LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-420 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TRADE 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BRAZIL 

Signed at Punta del Este April 20, 2010 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
BRAZIL 

Trade 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Punta del Este April 20, 2010; 

 Entered into force April 20, 2010.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         108,536
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  258,287
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               531,830
<PP&E>                                         228,590
<DEPRECIATION>                                 170,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 761,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,107
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       871,286
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (331,980)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   761,382
<SALES>                                      1,172,713
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,172,742
<CGS>                                          632,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,063,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,015
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                101,546
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,371
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,175
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,175
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 1,

2011

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 11

- 0 0 975

- CV

____________ GARY HORNDESKI, M.D. , Appellant

V.

ALVIN G. WILLIAMSON , Appellee

On Appeal from the 10 th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 07

- CV

- 0632



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

This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 5, 201 1 . On November 17
, 2011
, the parties filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in order to effectuate a compromise and settlement agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedge s, Justices Anderson and Christopher.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60683-60684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29768]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-405-802]


Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Finland; Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; Extension of Time Limit

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit.

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

[[Page 60684]]

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit of the final results of the antidumping duty administrative 
review of Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Finland. This review 
covers the period August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Ludwig, Office of AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to unforeseen circumstances facing the 
Department at this time, it is not practicable to complete this review 
within the original time limit. The Department is extending the time 
limit for completion of the final results until December 15, 1997, in 
accordance with Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (19 U.S.C. 
1675 (a)(30(A)). See memorandum to Robert S. La Russa from Joseph A. 
Spetrini regarding the extension of case deadline, dated November 3, 
1997.

    Dated: November 4, 1997.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 97-29768 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
#### JOHNSTON FIXTURE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Edna Leola SUYDAM, Appellee.

No. 71-72.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 21, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29981]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development 
#1199).
    Date and Time: December 2 and 3, 1997, 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA., Rooms 365, 370, 375.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Lawrence Scadden & Mary Kohlerman, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 306-1636.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Programs for Persons with 
Disabilities proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-29981 Filed 11-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Order entered May 3, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00258-CR

No. 05-21-00259-CR

ROBERT JESSE MEYERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-82877-2020 & 380-82495-2020

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s April 29, 2022 second motion for an 

extension of time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the State’s

brief received with the motion filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Borough of Allentown *versus*Saeger.

A borough tax, part of which was legal and part illegal, was paid by the person assessed, without protest or notice at the time that he would reclaim the part illegally assessed: *held*that he could not recover it back.

Error to the Common Pleas of *Lehigh county.*

This was a suit brought before a justice of the peace by Jacob Saeger *v.*the Burgess and Town Council of the borough of Allentown, to recover back the amount of taxes illegally assessed, which had been paid by Saeger, the plaintiff, to the tax collector. The illegal tax was one laid for borough purposes upon moneys at interest. In the case of Bridges *v.*The Borough of Allentown, it had been decided that under the charter of the borough, moneys at interest were not taxable for borough purposes.

*King*and *Reeder,*for plaintiff in error

*Bridges,*for defendant.

April 4,

The opinion of the Court was delivered, by

Lowrie, J.

Part of the taxes charged against Saeger was legal and part illegal, and he paid the whole on demand, and now seeks to recover back the part that was illegally assessed. It cannot be allowed. The case is very different from that of payment to an individual by mistake. It was submission to legitimate authority which was *primé facie*right in its exercise. The taxing officers performed their duty as well as they knew how, and the tax was submitted to by one who was interested in the purposes for which it was raised, though it might have been resisted in legal form. This was an assent to pay more in support of the government of the town than the town had a right to demand, and the law does not imply the duty of refunding. If it had been paid under protest, that is, with notice that he would claim it back, this would repel the implication of an assent, and give rise to the right of reclamation.

In another aspect it is unlike to a payment to an individual. It is a contribution to a common fund, in the benefits of which he, as a citizen or property-holder, participates. It is intended for immediate expenditure for the common good, and it would be unjust to require its repayment, after it has been thus, in whole or in part, properly expended, which would often be the case if suit could be brought for its recovery without notice having been given at the time of payment; and there would be no bar against its insidious spring -but the statute of limitations. On these principles the defendant below is entitled to the judgment.

Judgment reversed and judgment for the defendant below.
Exhibit 10.1




 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 






This First Amendment (the “Amendment”), dated as of January 3, 2018, of Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), dated as of August 1, 2017, between Brian M. Culley, an individual having an address at 2153 Whisper Wind Ln., Encinitas, CA 92024 (the “Executive”) and Artemis Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Employment Agreement.


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Employment Agreement of the Executive;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants, agreements and promises hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:






1.          The definition of “Investment Date”, contained in Section 3(a), COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS – Salary, of the Employment Agreement, shall be amended from December 31, 2017 to March 31, 2018, such that Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:


 


Salary.  For services rendered by the Executive hereunder, the Company will pay Executive a gross base salary (the “Salary”) at the annual rate of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand US Dollars (US$150,000), less payroll deductions and withholdings as required by applicable law.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, by March 31, 2018 (the “Investment Date”), the Company receives capital investments in an aggregate amount that exceeds two million dollars (US$2,000,000.00) (the “Capital Raise”), the Salary will increase to an annual rate of Three Hundred Thousand US Dollars (US$300,000.00), less payroll deductions and withholdings as required by applicable law.  The Salary will be payable in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices.


 


2.          All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and




 


 [signature page follows]


 











 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.


	 	
 


Company:


 


ARTEMIS THERAPEUTICS INC.


 


By: /s/ Chanan Morris

Name: Chanan Morris

 Title:  CFO


 


Executive:


 


/s/ Brian M. Culley

 Brian M. Culley