alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10259 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CARRIE RENE CRAFT Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-144-1
Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carrie Rene Craft appealsfrom the sentence imposed following her guiltyplea conviction for possession ofcounterfeit obligationsofthe United States. She argues that her sentence was unreasonable because, in light of the miti gating factors at issue in her case, the imposed term ofimprisonment was greater than necessary to achieve the objectives set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As she argued in the district court prior to sentencing, Craft asserts on appeal that she merits leniency because she provided assistance to the authorities immediately United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 11, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-10259

2 upon her arrest and because her assistance led to the arrest of her codefendant/husband. The district court explicitly noted before imposing Craft’s sentence that it had considered Craft’s arguments as to mitigating f actors, as well as the § 3553(a) factors. We consider Craft’s argument as to the substantive reasonableness of her sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard, taking intoaccount the totality ofthe circumstances. SeeGall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Also, because Craft’s sentence was imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines range, it is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. U nited States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). After reviewing the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, we hold that Craft’s appellate argumentsfail toestablish that her sentence was unreasonable. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Charlrp Lookhart 

State Troarumr 

Austin, Texas 

t0 

i aa being renewed. The o~lgl~l 

are retaine6,~ 

eat our oplnloa IIB to whether the rainto aauae the 

aeat should be classed ~8 a reneWa 80 a8 

inrtruneat 

rlded by .,rticie 70470, 

to be subjrot to the tax as prot 

Vernon*8 Civil Statutes. ,\fter 

~~ld.hg for the levy of a tax of ten Oent8 On eaah one 

u&red dollars or fraotion thereof over the firat 6wo 

hured dollars on all notes and obligations scoured bp 

‘“rious liens which are filed or recorded in the office 

Ot the County Clerk, said ;bot prorides: 
Honorable Charley Lmkhart, pagS L 

~dtetr he l f&tirr date of thfo AOt, 

exoo~t ao ~rolnaftrr prorided, no enoh b trument shall be fll5d or reaorded by any Count 

Clark ia this 6tate until there bar tmen l ff I xed ta euoh Inetr unl tarpr ent in aoaordanoo with 

thS protleiono of thir l eotion; proriding further that should thr.l.mtrumnt SilSd In the 

offlao of the County Clerk 00 eclaurlty of an 

obligation that has property pl~od ae reaurity 

la a state or States other t&an Texas, the tat 

Shall M based upon the reasonable eaoh raluS 

of 5ll propert ple4g~d ia TSzae in th5 proportion that Said propwty in Wras &bare to the 

total valtae of t&o property l ~~arlng tie obll&ationl and, providing rurthor that, except a0 to 

renawalr or exteasionr of aoorued Intueot, the 

provISIon ot thIS eeotlon l h5ll not apply to 

Inetrwmnte given In reaew5l or eetensiono 0r J’ 

in8trunento theretofore stamped ulder the provloiono of this xot or tho OA@ araonded hereby, 

and oh511 not appl 

I 

to Iaotrumnte given in the 

refunding of Sxiot ng bonds or obligatloao rh5rS 

tho preoedlug Instrument ef l eonrlty wao l tampeb 

In acSordanoS tith this Act or the on5 umnddd 

horobyi . . .* 

m the faoto stat& in your letter, prior to the 

=eOution of the iMtWDOAt In queStiOn the whole indebtedmm0 w08 due. It ie ismaterial a8 to whether thL faot ozme 

about through the Sxpiratlon of tlw or through tbo aot of 

the holdor of the note in aooeloratiag the maturity OS the 

~debtedneao ao provided in tbr agr5mmto betwon the borrower and the 15nder. m rtfoot of the agreement in qwetIoa is purely to renew and ext~ad the matwit 

~debtedneoe. 1; 

date of the 

The faot that eueh is ao~mpli8 ed by relnatatllrg the loan in its original eortdithm goes only to the 

h.A Oi the iA.StZ’lUlSAt of OXteASiOD. AiAOS AA StLU+~ b3fS 

*VW bema pfaoed upon any inotrument 000uriAg thr Pw'AeAt Of 

a Part or the Indebtedness aSSeated by the relnotatsnvat 

ok?Peenent, the some must now be stamped In aceordanoo rith 

*up Opinion x0. 

t iTa answer . 

O-1052. your question reoelveo an drimYours very truly 

A~TOREY 03iEbL CP TXLS
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 27330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12537]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan 
Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et 
seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 
CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to 
become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets 
or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a 
savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and 
loan holding company, including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless 
otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the 
United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 6, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. Comments can 
also be sent electronically to or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#72311d1f1f171c06015c1302021e1b1113061b1d1c0132001b111a5c1400105c1d0015"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b381416161e150f08551a0b0b1712181a0f121415083b09121813551d09195514091c">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. CBM Bancorp Inc., Parkville, Maryland; to become a savings and 
loan holding company by merging with Banks of Chesapeake, M.H.C. 
Parkville, Maryland, and thereby indirectly acquire Chesapeake Bank of 
Maryland, Parkville, Maryland.
    In connection with the proposal, Banks of Chesapeake M.H.C will 
convert from mutual to stock form.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 6, 2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-12537 Filed 6-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement on Form S-8, as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1, of our 
report dated December 12, 1998, except as to Note 15, which is as of 
January 15, 1999 which appears in STB Systems, Inc.'s Annual Report on 
Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 1998. We also consent to the 
incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule, 
which appears in such Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Dallas, Texas
January 25, 1999
BF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0143

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN EUGENE COLE JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including August 2, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 26 2024

06/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0143
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 12645 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:17

- cv
- 60597

- WPD

RAYMOND A. HANNA EL,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus STATE OF FLORIDA, BROWARD COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES , CITY OF LAUDERHILL, CARLOS REBELLO, MICHAEL MAUER, et al.,
Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Sout hern District of Florida

________________________ (June 18, 2019) Case: 18-12645 Date Filed: 06/18/2019 Page: 1 of 22 Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge , BRANCH, and FAY , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Raymond Hanna El, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
42 U.S.C.§ 1983 suit, appeals the district court’s denial of h is “ W rit to Amend the
Record , ” which the district court construed as a motion to amend

. We review only
for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion to amend. Stevens v. Gay , 864 F.2d 113, 116 (11th Cir. 1989)

. The district court denied Hanna El’s
motion to amend because the case was closed

— and had been for over a yea r by
the time Hanna El filed his motion. That was not an abuse of discretion. See id. (“ Undue delay or failure properly to amend a complaint after repeated opportunity
to do so

. . . constitutes grounds to deny a motion to amend. ”). Hanna El also appeals the denial of his “Writ of Error , ” which the district
court construed as a motion for reconsideration. We review only for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Richardson v. Johnson , 598 F.3d 734, 740 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Hanna El’s motion appears to have
been an effort to relitigate the district court’s prior rulings . B ecause “[a] motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters , ” i d. (quotation marks omitted) , the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hanna El’s
motion.
AFFIRMED. Case: 18-12645 Date Filed: 06/18/2019 Page: 2 of 2
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

September 18, 2014

Amanda Wait, Esq.

Hunton & Williams LLP

2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

Re: In the Matter of Service Corporation International and Stewart Enterprises, Inc., 

Docket No. C-4423.

Dear Ms. Wait:

This is in reference to the Petition For Approval of Proposed Divestiture filed by Service 

Corporation International (“SCI”) and received on March 24, 2014 (“Petition”). Pursuant to the 

Decision and Order in Docket No. C-4423, SCI requests prior Commission approval of its proposal to divest certain assets to William Gregory through newly created Cole & Garrett LLC.

After consideration of SCI’s Petition and other available information, the Commission 

has determined to approve the proposed divestiture as set forth in the Petition. In according its 

approval, the Commission has relied upon the information submitted and the representations 

made by SCI and William Gregory in connection with SCI’s Petition and has assumed them to 

be accurate and complete.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

cc: Paul Houston
#### SWARTSEL PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-195.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 9, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 2, 1972.

Sam Y. Allgood, Jr. and Jack B. McPherson of Allgood, McPherson & Cobb, New Port Richey, for appellant.

H. Rex Owen, St. Petersburg, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a condemnation suit brought by appellee, Florida Power Corporation, against appellant, Swartsel Properties, Inc. The lawyers on both sides have filed outstanding briefs which we have thoroughly examined. We have heard oral argument and studied the record.

Appellant has urged five assignments of error which they contend constitute reversible errror. We have examined each of the points and the case law involved and have concluded that no reversible error was committed.

We have further concluded that a detailed opinion would in no way add to the well enunciated law in this field and would serve no useful purpose.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000037008
<NAME> FIRST UNION REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      78,374,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,942,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,438,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            92,754,000
<PP&E>                                     525,913,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (82,056,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             605,002,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    360,882,000
<COMMON>                                    42,477,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 31,737,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 123,193,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               605,002,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           227,790,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              163,933,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            43,824,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          31,788,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (17,755,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,028,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Joseph J. Simons, Chairman 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rohit Chopra

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

Christine S. Wilson

In the Matter of 

DOCKET NO. 9383 

ambridge Analytica, LLC,

a corporation. 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME PERIOD

FOR RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION

In order to give thorough consideration to the issues presented by Complaint Counsel’s 

Motion for Summary Decision in this proceeding, the Commission has determined, pursuant to Rule 

4.3(b), 16 C.F.R. § 4.3(b), to further extend the time period for issuing a ruling on that Motion until 

November 26, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

By the Commission. 

April J. Tabor 

Acting Secretary

SEAL:

ISSUED: October 27, 2019 

C
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FLORIDA PROGRESS CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000357261
<NAME> FLORIDA PROGRESS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        3,612
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      1,132
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             995
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           382
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     396
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,517
<COMMON>                                         1,274
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                763
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   2,037
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              300
<PREFERRED>                                         34
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             2,171
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                  35
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                     184
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      163
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,593
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    6,517
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          950
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                 9
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         815
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         824
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            126
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   0
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     126
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            49
<NET-INCOME>                                        77
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       77
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            55
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              42
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78


</TABLE>
ARCG 12.31.2013 EX 10.22 10-K Filing


Exhibit 10.22


AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR 
PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY 
GE Aviation: Grand Rapids, MI
THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is made and entered into as of September 9, 2013, by and between AR CAPITAL, LLC ("Buyer"), and TOWERS PARTNERS, L.L.C. ("Seller"), to amend the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property (the "Agreement") between them with an Effective Date of September 3, 2013, as follows (capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement):
		
	A.
	Notwithstanding contrary or conflicting provisions in the Agreement, the Seller's requirement to deliver a copy of the most recent environmental reports for the Property and Purchaser's environmental inspections of the Property shall be part of the deliverables and inspections related to and performed during the Second Due Diligence Period.


		
	B.
	In all other respects, the Agreement continues in full force and effect. Therefore, the parties executed this Amendment as of the above date.











	
		
	BUYER:
	SELLER:

	AR CAPITAL, LLC


By: /s/ Edward M. Weil, Jr.
Name: Edward M. Weil, Jr.
Title: President


	TOWER PARTNERS, L.L.C.




By: /s/ Larry Cruttenden
Title: Authorized Agent
### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 27, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13759 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 8 - 0 0 5 6 2 - C R - F AM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A M A D O R V A L E N T I N , a .k .a . H e rm in io A v ile s , J r ., a .k .a . H e rm in io A v ile s , D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 27, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an dH IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A m a d o rV a le n tin ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to2

r e c o m m e n dto th e b u r e au o f p r is o n s th a t h e s e rv e h is f e d e r a l s e n te n c e a t as ta te f a c i l i ty , w hi c h he f

i l e d s i x y e ar s a f

t e rhi s c onvi c t i on be c a m e f i na l . M i gue l C ar i da d, appo i nt ed coun se l for V al ent i n, has f i l ed a m ot i on t o w i thd raw on appealsupp ort ed byabr i e f

pr e par e d pur s uantt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 49 3 (19 67 ). O ur i nd ependentre vi ew of the ent i re re cord revea l s that co u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o a r g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of V al en t i n ’ s m o t i o n i s A FFI R M ED .
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-146114) and Form S-8 (No. 333-39065, 333-92525,333-112213, 333-130235, 333-50296, 333-71374, 333-122148, 333-122155, 333-138863, 333-03656, 333-147423, 333-155360, 333-50292 and 333-162973) of Adept Technology, Inc. of our report dated September 17, 2010 relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and the financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

*/s/ Armanino McKenna LLP*

ARMANINO McKENNA LLP 

San Ramon, California

September 17, 2010