alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### August B. TREFZ and Mary Ann Trefz, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Lyle L. JOHNSON and Marian E. Johnson, husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 71-200.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 5, 1972.

Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, for appellants.

John B. Ritch, of Murray W. Overstreet, Jr., Kissimmee, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record having been given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1134

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Nebraska. * John Anthony Welch, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 2, 2005 Filed: December 8, 2005

___________ Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. John Welch pleaded guilty to a firear m charge, a Class D felony, and was sentenced to 60 months in prison and 3 year s supervised release. While Welch was serving his supervised release, the district court 1 revoked supervised release upon Welch’s pleas of no contest and guilty to va rious alleged violations of his release conditions. Noting Welch’s past behavior, his noncompliance with supervision, and the need for mental health tr eatment, as well as the need to promote respect for the law and to provide just punishment and afforddeterrence, the district court sentenced-2- Welch to 24 months in prison without further supervised release. Welch appeals, arguing the sentence was unreasonable becau se it was much higher than the range recommended under Chapter Seven of the Guid elines, and because the district court failed to consider that range and misapplied the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We reject Welch’s arguments and affirm his revocati on sentence. The sentence was within statutory limits, and in fashi oning Welch’s sentence the district court explicitly considered, in open court, appropriate sentencing factors under section 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (district court must consider § 3553(a) factors when deciding whether to revoke supervised release; authorizing up to 2 years imprisonment upon revocation of supervised re lease where original offense is Class D felony). As for the Chapter Seven recommended range, a violation worksheet reflecting that range was available to the court, and Welch’s a ttorney discussed the range at the revocation hearing, urging th e court to impose a sentence within that range. We will not presume that the c ourt failed to consid er the range. See United States v. White Face , 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 20 04) (all that is required is evidence that court has considered relevant matters and that some reason be stated for its decision; if sentencing judge refere nces some considerations contained in § 3553(a), appellate court is ordi narily satisfied that district court was aware of entire contents of relevant statute). Finally, we find that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review; sentence within statutory range and grounded in concerns regarding defendant’s past be havior was not unreasonable).
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Pace Industries Cast-Tech Division, Inc., origin ally a plaintiff in this action, has 1 been merged into Pace. (Appellant’s Br. at ii.) The HONORABLE H. FRANKLIN WATERS, United States District Judge for 2 the Western District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1926

___________ Pace Industries, Inc.; Pace Industries * Cast-Tech Division, Inc., * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Continental Insurance Company, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 25, 1997 Filed: December 4, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pace Industries, Inc. appeals from the district court & s grant of summar y 1 2 judgment in favor of Continental Insurance Company in this action for declaratory-2-

judgment on insurance coverage. After de novo review of the record, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALIAKSANDR KRASANTOVICH;

LIUBOV VYACHESLAVOVNA

AKULINTSEVA, a.k.a. Leobov

Vioachislavovna,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70026

Agency Nos. A088-534-519

A088-534-520

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 10, 2014** 

Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Aliaksandr Krasantovich, a native and citizen of Belarus, and Liubov

Vyacheslavovna Akulintseva, a native and citizen of Russia, petition for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an

FILED

MAR 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency found Krasantovich not credible based on a perceived lack of

candor in his testimony and discrepancies between his testimony and his visa

application. These findings are not supported by substantial evidence. See Ren v.

Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (inconsistencies had no basis in the

record). The agency also found Krasantovich failed to corroborate his testimony. 

However, at the time it made this finding, it did not have the benefit of our decision

in Ren, 648 F.3d at 1089-94. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, and

remand Krasantovich’s claims, on an open record, for further proceedings

consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)

(per curiam); Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1093-96 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

2 12-70026
259 La. 700

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Alex ASH v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51697.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1971.

In re: Alex Ash applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Granted. See order.

The petition of relator in the above numbered and entitled cause having been duly considered,

It is ordered that the Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafourche, without delay grant an evidentiary hearing on relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in that Court and this Court, and make a determination of the merits of his application after the hearing. Evidence adduced at that hearing is limited to the question of whether a valid supporting affidavit was executed and relied upon before issuance of the search warrant. Inquiry into the constitutionality of the search and seizure in other respects is limited to the evidence previously adduced at the hearings on motions to suppress and the relevant evidence adduced during the trial.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 8, 2009 

p0108 

Order 

 

January 8, 2009 

137920 & (14) 

DEBRA ELIZABETH KRUG, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137920 

 COA: 289308 

Roscommon Circuit Court 

KIM LEE VICTOR, Family Division: 05-725368-DZ 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the December 12, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals 

is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 2

- 00 464

- C V



### ____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.M., J.D.M., AND D.M.M.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. F

- 201,904

- H

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

On April 11, 2013, we abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial

court for a hearing to settle a dispute regarding the reporter’ s record. See Tex. R.

App. P. 34.6(e). A supplemental clerk’s record, which includes the exhibits found

by the trial court to accurately duplicate the original exhibits, has been filed. See

T ex. R. App. P. 34.6(f)(4). W e have been notified that the appellant has requested

additional supplementation of exhibits from hearings conducted on October 27,

2011 and April 18, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(d). A request for access by

appellate couns el to the sealed record has also been filed.2 It is, therefore, ORDERED that the appeal is reinstated. The record may be

supplemented as requested by the parties. Counsel of record for the appellant and

the appellee may obtain access to the sealed record , including the sealed reporters

record and exhibits for the April 18, 2012 Motion to Enter Orders, by making an

appointment in advance with the Clerk of the Court for counsel of record to review

the record at the Court of Appeals during regular business hours. The brief of the

appellant is due June 17, 2013.

ORDER ENTERED May 16 , 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
# Official Journal C 357/16 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 357 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6516 September 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 357

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6516 September 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 357/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2022/C 357/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 15 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 357/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2022/C 357/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections

15

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
#### ALL-RITE FENCE COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Raphel DIAZ, Individually, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-787.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 11, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Kenneth F. ROBERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-459.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 18, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NO. 07-05-0390-CR

	NO. 07-05-0391-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	DECEMBER 20, 2005

	______________________________

	ROSS DANIEL MONNETT, 

								Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

								Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 251st DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NOS. 49,127-C and 49,128-C; HON. PATRICK PIRTLE, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ORDER OF DISMISSAL

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Ross Daniel Monnett appeals his convictions for possessing a controlled substance.  He pled guilty to the offenses in accordance with a plea bargain and confessed to the accusations in the indictments.  Upon determining that his plea was knowing and voluntary, the trial court found him guilty of the offenses and assessed punishment within the range recommended by the prosecutor.  As part of the bargain, appellant also waived his right to appeal the causes, and the trial court certified, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) and (d), that he had no right to appeal them.  

	According to Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the trial court must certify whether or not the appellant has the right to appeal.  If such a certification has not been executed, the appeal must be dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).  Here, the trial court did not certify that appellant had a right to appeal; quite the contrary, it certified that he did not.  Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Todd C. Emerson, #8175 444 SouthRiver Road St. George, Utah, 84790 Telephone: (435) 634-3530 Facsimile: (435) 634-3505 Attorney for Sky WestAirlines, Inc. 

# RECEIVED JAN 0"1 Z'J14 

## HEARING DOCKET

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
Inthe Matter of:

Sky WestAirlines, Inc. 

### AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF AARON PERKINS FDMS No. FAA-2013-0292 FAA CaseNo. 2012NM060025 Judge: Richard C. Goodwin

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46104(c), 49 C.F.R. § 821.19(a) and the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, Respondent SkyWest Airlines will take the deposition ofAaron Perkins on January 15, 2014 beginning at 10:00 a.m., and continuing thereafter until completed atthe offices ofSeattle Deposition Reporters, 600 University Street (at Sixth Avenue), Suite 320, Seattle, Washington 98101, before a certified court reporter having the power to administer oaths. DATEDthis 2"dday ofJanuary, 2014. 

# /1\

Attorney for SkyWest Airlines, Inc.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 2"d day ofJanuary, 2014,I causedto be served the foregoing AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF AARONPERKINS via facsimile and United States mail, first class postage pre-paid, on the following: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building GroundFloor, Rrn El2-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 {US. Mail} Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 {US. Mail} Robert Spitzer Federal AviationAdministration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 {Facsimile and US. Mail}



### 2
#### Robert CRITNEY v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY.

No. 60675.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1977.

In re: Robert Critney applying for writ of prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. No abuse of discretion.
Exhibit 23.2


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of our
reports dated November 14, 1996, included in U.S. Long Distance
Corp.'s Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1996 (and to all
references to our firm), included in this Registration Statement.


                                   /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


San Antonio, Texas
February 18, 1997
| (1)   | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                             |   |                                                   |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: April 28, 2011   | By:    | /s/ David Laky                |   |
|                             |   | David Laky                                             |   |
|                             |   | Principal Executive OfficerMedClean Technologies, Inc. |   |

----
Definitions

 Pump – Pump End Only Extended Product – Pump; Driver; VFD; Controls (Feedb

VSD

Mains

l

,

Control,

Monitoring

Fluid 

Outlet

Electric

Motor Coupling

Fluid 

Inlet

 Pump Systems

Base Plate
This page is

This page is

intentionally lefintentionally lef

blank.

CONFIDENTIAL: FO
This page is This page is

intentionally lefintentionally lef

blank.

CONFIDENTIAL: FO
Product Types Within Scope -
MEI Pump Evaluation Tool
Application Results

EU Pump Mfg Cost to Comply (

- 10% -

$ 58M in invest

- 20% - $ 163M- 40%- $ 440M- 50%- $ 744M- 80% - $1900M ($1.9B)
Recommendation (Summary):

 Same scope as EU Water Pump Standard (TC197

 Clean Water 25 GPM and greater Maximum 29 Clean Water 25 GPM and greater, Maximum 29 1-200HP; Temp range from -10 deg C to +120 d

 US P N l t US

Pump 

Nomencla

ture – ANSI/HI 1 3 ANSI/HI

1.3

-2009

 European Approach – MEI (Lot11) 10% 2013 –  Scope of products (Extended Products):

 All applications with variable load and low static  Average load calculations, savings of 9.8TWhr/

 Energy Savings 1 9+9 8= 11 6TWhr/yr Energy Savings

1.9+9.8= 11.6TWhr/yr – 202

202
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1968

JOSEPH N. BRIGGS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;

LISA, Manager, U.S.P.O., Cox Avenue,

Asheville, NC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (CA-05-257-1)

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph N. Briggs, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

In response to the magistrate judge’s report, Briggs filed a

notice of appeal. That notice of appeal was interlocutory when

filed; however, the district court’s subsequent entry of judgment

prior to this court’s consideration of the appeal cures the defect

in jurisdiction. See Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse

Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joseph N. Briggs appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Briggs that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Briggs failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.*

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequence of failure to object. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Briggs has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
- 3 -

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



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

        I, Leighton J. Stephenson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of P-Com, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of P-Com, Inc.


By:  /s/  LEIGHTON J. STEPHENSON
    -----------------------------
    Name: Leighton J. Stephenson
    Title: Chief Financial Officer
    and Vice President, Finance and
    Administration (Principal
    Financial Officer)



<PAGE>
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01


                            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 Benihana Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended April 1, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel A. Schwartz,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Joel A. Schwartz
-----------------------------------------
Joel A. Schwartz
Chief Executive Officer

June 15, 2007



                                       30