alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ELR OY JAY W E ASELB EAR , Sr., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30111

D.C . No. 1:12-c r-00069-R FC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na R ic ha rd F. C e bull, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Elroy Ja y W e a se lbe ar, Sr., a

p pe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the te n-y e ar te rm of supe rvise d re le a se im

p ose d following his guiltyple a c onvic tion for inc e st, in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 1153(b) a nd M onta na C ode 

# FIL ED FEB 26 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Annota

te d § 45-5-507(1). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we va c ate and re m and. W e a se lbe ar c onte nds, a

nd the gove rnm e nt c onc e d e s, tha t the te n-y e ar te rm of supe rvise d re le a se e xc e e ds the sta tutory m a xim um . The m a xim

um a uthoriz e d te rm of supe rvise d re le a s e for a C la ss A fe l ony

is five y e ars. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3583(b)(1). Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the te rm of supe rvise d re le a se and re m and to the distric t

c o urt for the lim ite d purpose of se tting a ne w te rm within the sta tutorily pe rm i tte d ran ge . Se eUnite d State s v . Guzman-Bruno , 27 F.3d 420, 423 (9th C ir. 1994). V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

1 3 - 3 0 1 1 1 2
#### Napoleon STUBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1023.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 11, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2014032EN.01000101.xml

| 4.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7111 — Mitsui/ArcelorMittal Gonvarri Brasil Produtos Siderúrgicos/M Steel Comércio de Produtos Siderúrgicos)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 32/01

On 29 January 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7111. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7111. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7373

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KIM FREDERICK TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-98-208, CA-00-209-1)

Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kim Frederick Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kim Frederick Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). On appeal, Taylor alleges that the Supreme Court’s decision

in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000),

renders his guilty plea invalid because he was not informed during

the guilty plea inquiry that the prosecution would be required to

prove drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt. We need not address

whether Apprendi applies retroactively on collateral review because

Taylor’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum under 21

U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999), which sets the statutory maximum at twenty years for the smallest amounts of cocaine.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Taylor, Nos. CR-98-208; CA-00-209-1

(M.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

June 6, 2012 

d0530 

Order 

 

June 6, 2012 

144490 & (35) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144490 

 COA: 298960 

Kent CC: 09-006895-FH 

SHANE VICTOR CURLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion to file a pro per supplement to the application 

for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 29, 

2011 judgment 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.
Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Kevin Landis, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:





(1)     The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 134; 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/ Kevin LandisName: Kevin LandisTitle: Chief Financial Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate: May 8, 2014
Exhibit 23.1



                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT









The Board of Directors
Devcon International Corp. and Subsidiaries:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-
32968 and No. 33-59557) on Form S-8 of Devcon International Corp. and
subsidiaries of our report dated March 29,1999, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Devcon International Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, and the related
financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1999
annual report on Form 10-K of Devcon International Corp. and subsidiaries.



                                    KPMG LLP


Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 30, 2000
##### 



Exhibit 32-13 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Detroit Edison Company (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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. Dated: March 15, 2005
    
    /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.Anthony F. Earley, Jr.Chairman, President, Chief Executive andChief Operating Officer of The Detroit Edison Company
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### George D. COOK, Appellant, v. UNDERWRITERS NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Appellee.

Nos. 68-694, 68-862.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 1, 1969.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1969.

*19Robert C. Ware, William R. Alvin, Miami, for appellant.

Frates, Fay, Floyd & Pearson and James Little, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

SWANN, Judge.

These consolidated appeals involve the question of whether the plaintiff, George D. Cook, stated a cause of action against Underwriters National Assurance Company, an Indiana corporation, in two counts of his pleadings which the trial court dismissed, with prejudice.

Count Two sought specific performance from the insurance company of an alleged oral agreement to pay Cook commissions for insurance sales allegedly made prior to his being properly licensed as an agent under the laws of Florida. This is prohibited by law. Fla.Stat. § 626.-0312, F.S.A.

We, therefore, affirm the dismissal of Count Two, with prejudice.

In Count One of the amended complaint, Cook sought reformation of an alleged written agreement between himself and the insurance company so that it would conform with the alleged prior oral agreement between the parties concerning commissions due him for sale of insurance and alternatively sought damages for breach of the alleged written contract. This count was dismissed with prejudice because the alleged oral contract to pay insurance commissions was prior to the time Cook was licensed to sell insurance in Florida and such agreement is in violation of Fla.Stat. § 626.0312, F.S.A. We concur but hold that Count One should not have been dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

That part of Count One seeking damages for the breach of the alleged written contract between the parties, though inart-fully drawn, sufficiently alleged a breach of a written agreement; or could be so amended to state a cause of action. 25 Fla.Jur. Pleadings § 55: Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110 (g), 30 F.S.A.

This cause is, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further action consistent herewith.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 18A-PL-462 | November 20, 2018 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ON REHEARING

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

John J. Schwarz, II

Schwarz Law Office, PC

Hudson, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES 

PUTNAM COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS

Trudy L. Selvia

Greencastle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

INTERVENOR

Hayleigh J. Neumann

Robert J. Nice

The Nice Law Firm, LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William E. Morrison and

Sonya Morrison,

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

Putnam County Commissioners,

Appellees-Petitioners,

and

Donald Richards,

Appellee-Intervenor

November 20, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-PL-462

Appeal from the Putnam Superior 

Court

The Honorable Raymond M. 

Kirtley, Senior Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

67D01-1402-PL-3
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 18A-PL-462 | November 20, 2018 Page 2 of 3

Baker, Judge.

[1] William and Sonya Morrison have filed a petition for rehearing on this Court’s 

original decision in this matter. We grant it for the limited purpose of 

addressing their second argument, which relates to whether the trial court 

erroneously determined that they did not establish a prior non-conforming use 

of the property. We initially found that the Morrisons waived this issue 

because they neglected to raise it below. On rehearing, they point out that at 

two points in the transcript, their attorney used the word “grandfathered,” 

which they maintain is sufficient to preserve their right to make this argument. 

Tr. Vol. II p. 116, 208-10. We question whether two isolated instances of the 

use of this word, which occurred in the context of responding to objections 

made by opposing counsel, suffice to preserve this argument. But we will give 

them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have not waived it.

[2] They argue that William’s testimony that “[t]he majority of the items out there 

predate the ’92 zoning laws” is enough to sustain their burden of showing a 

prior non-conforming use. Id. at 103. The trial court had the benefit of inperson observation of this bench trial. It was for the trial court, rather than this 

Court, to assess the credibility of the witnesses before it. We will not secondguess the trial court’s implicit determination that William’s testimony on this 

issue was not credible. Aside from this brief sentence, there is no other 

evidence in the record supporting the Morrisons’ assertion that the complainedof items on their property predated the relevant ordinances. Therefore, we 

decline to reverse for this reason.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 18A-PL-462 | November 20, 2018 Page 3 of 3

[3] In all other respects, we deny the petition for rehearing, and our original 

decision affirming the trial court’s order remains.

May, J., and Robb, J., concur.
#### Pennsylvania Railroad Co. *v.*Merchants’ Warehouse Co.

Argued October 17, 1934.

Before Teexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld and Parker, JJ.

*Henry Wolf Bihle,*with him *Rhoads & Coulston*and *William F. Zearfam,*for appellant.

*Robert G. Ershine,*and with him *M. Hampton Todd,*for appellee.

January 4, 1935:

Opinion by

Trexler, P. J.,

The court below refused to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. After reading the pleadings, we are all of the opinion that this case falls within the rule that an order of this kind is not *555reversible unless the action of the court below clearly appears to be based on a plain error of law. We think an opportunity should be given to develop the facts at the trial: Goodrich Rubber Co. v. Motor Tire Corp., 291 Pa. 185, 140 A. 269 and Colonial Securities Co. v. Levy, 302 Pa. 329, 153 A. 553.

The order appealed from is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32


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


In connection with the Annual Report of PROCOREGROUP, INC. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

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

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


Dated: April 15, 2005                         /s/ Kamal Abdallah
                                              ------------------
                                              Kamal Abdallah
                                              Chief Executive Officer


Dated: April 15, 2005                         /s/ George Csatary
                                              ------------------
                                              George Csatary
                                              Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of State Bank Financial Corporation (the “Company”), each certify that, to his knowledge:





1.  The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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/ Joseph W. EvansJoseph W. EvansChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)July 18, 2013/s/ Thomas L. Callicutt, Jr.Thomas L. Callicutt, Jr.Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)July 18, 2013
<PAGE>   1







                                                                   EXHIBIT 12
 


                      Dean Foods Company and Subsidiaries
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
               -------------------------------------------------



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Fiscal Years Ending May
                                         1997            1996            1995             1994             1993                
<S>                                   <C>             <C>              <C>             <C>              <C>                    
  Income (loss) before taxes           $145,723        $(69,395)        $136,388        $118,313         $114,759              
                                     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fixed charges:                                                                                                   
            Interest expense             25,150          28,120           22,397          15,471           14,888              
            Debt issue costs                190             229              117             123              155              
    Portion of rentals (33%)              9,605          10,142            8,270           6,997            7,653              
                                     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Total fixed charges             34,945          38,491           30,784          22,591           22,696              
                                     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings (loss) before taxes                                                                                                   
           and fixed charges           $180,668        $(30,904)        $167,172        $140,904         $137,455              
                                     ============================================================================
                                                                                                                               
    Ratio of earnings (loss)                                                                                                   
            to fixed charges                5.2            - (*)             5.4             6.2              6.1              
                                     ============================================================================
</TABLE>                                


(*) The Fiscal 1996 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges is less than one-to-one
    due to the $150.0 million special charge included in "Income (Loss) before
    Taxes", resulting in $69,395 fixed charge coverage deficiency.





                                     122
EXHIBIT 21- SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES

1.       EasyGrocer.com, Inc.
2.       EasyGrocer.com, LLC
3.       Fiesta Market, Inc.
4.       Pioneer Food Stores, Inc.
5.       Rose Trucking Corp.
6.       W.R. Activities Corp.
7.       W.R. Hillside Corp.
8.       W.R. Purchasing Corp.
9.       W.R. Service Corp.
10.      W.R. Service II Corp.
11.      W.R. Service III Corp.
12.      W.R. Service IV Corp.
13.      W.R. Service V Corp.
14.      WRCBC Leasing Corp.
15.      WRFT Holdings, Inc.
16.      White Rose, Inc.
17.      White Rose Puerto Rico, LLC
Certification
Pursuant to

18
U.S.C. Section 1350,

As
Adopted Pursuant to

Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) for the
quarter ended March 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Kevin Landis and Omar Billawala, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
of their knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: May 10, 2018                            | 
|--------------------------------------------- | 
|                                              | 
|                                              | 
|Kevin
        Landis

Chief
Executive Officer | 





|                                                | 
|----------------------------------------------- | 
|Omar
        Billawala

Chief
Financial Officer |