alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Alvin and Odelia LACHNEY.

No. 88-KK-0129.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 29, 1988.

In re Lachney, Alvin; applying for supervisory writs and writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW87-1170; Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, Nos. 61655, 61720.

Denied.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2455

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Bruce W. Cox, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 13, 2001 Filed: November 23, 2001

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Bruce W. Cox pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924. In the plea agreement, Cox and the Government stipulated that in applying the Sentencing Guidelines, “the amount of methamphetamine attributable to [Cox], including relevant conduct, is at least 50 grams but less than 200 grams of a substance containing a mixture of methamphetamine.” The presentence report repeated the drug quantity stipulation, and Cox did not contest the presentence report’s facts. At* The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. -2- sentencing, the district court * applied the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of five years corresponding to the amount of methamphetamine specified in the plea agreement and presentence report. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii) (Supp. V 1999) (in offense involving fifty grams or more of mixture containing methamphetamine, defendant shall be sentenced to not less than five and not more than forty years). On appeal, Cox contends the district court could not convert the amount of ephedrine seized into methamphetamine for the purpose of deciding whether his offense involved at least fifty grams of methamphetamine. The district court properly based drug quantity on Cox’s stipulation that his offense involved “at least 50 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine,” however. Cox also asserts that because the indictment did not specify drug quantity, his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (other than fact of earlier conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Because Cox’s sentence is less than the twenty-year maximum authorized in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) without regard to drug quantity, Apprendi does not require Cox’s drug quantity to be charged in his indictment. United States v. Aguayo-Delgado , 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1026 (2000). Cox acknowledges his argument is foreclosed by our decision in Aguayo-Delgado and argues the case is wrongly decided, but one panel of this court must follow the decision of other panels until overruled by the en banc court. United States v. Ortega , 150 F.3d 937, 947 (8 thCir. 1998).
We thus affirm Cox’s sentence.-3- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

STANLEY MAURICE TREADWELL, JR.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 301 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANTONIO LOPEZ

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 0 39

- C R

Appeal from the

171 st District C ourt

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20120D04452 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the b rief until April 1

, 201 8

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE APPELLANT ’S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Robin Norris

, the Appellant ’s attorney, prepare the

Appellant ’s b rief and forward the same to this Court on or before April 1 , 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 2 nd d ay of February , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00767-CV

Christina Marie DIAZ,

Appellant

v.

Felipe G. DIAZ,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1992-CI-04150

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 27, 2019

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant Christina Marie Diaz filed a notice of appeal in this court on October 29, 2019. 

Appellant was required to pay $205.00 in filing fees to this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5.1

 

Appellant did not timely pay the required fees. On November 27, 2019, when the fees remained 

unpaid, we ordered Appellant to provide written proof to this court not later than December 9, 

 1 See also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207(b)(1) (filing fee $100.00); id. §§ 51.0051, .208 (additional fee $50.00); 

id. § 51.851(b) (electronic filing fee $20.00); id. § 51.941(a) (services for indigents fee $25.00); Texas Supreme Court 

Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07–9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. 

A § B.l.(a).
04-19-00767-CV

- 2 -

2019, that the filing fees have been paid or Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the filing 

fees. See id. We warned Appellant that if she failed to respond as ordered, the appeal would be 

dismissed without further notice. See id. R. 5, 42.3; In re W.J.C., No. 04-05-00532-CV, 2005 WL 

3477883, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.).

To date, Appellant has not paid the fees or filed any response with this court. Therefore, 

we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM
#### Ed WHITE and Barbara Cornwell, Appellants, v. Charles R. BUCK, et al., Appellees.

No. 86-1806.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 9, 1987.

Edwin R. Ivy, Orlando, for appellants.

No appearance for appellees.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellants guilty of indirect criminal contempt. Because the order fails to follow Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(a)(6), we set aside the judgment. The rule requires the order to set forth the *37facts upon which the judgment is based. *Miller v. State,*305 So.2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); *Moore v. State,*245 So.2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Contempt proceedings often result in jail sentences, as did this one. For that reason the court must follow the law with precision, both to advise the accused and to permit meaningful appellate review.

The judgment and sentence are set aside and this cause remanded for entry of a proper judgment.

VACATED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur. '
Exhibit 10.6


 


May 24, 2017


 


To the Board of Directors of Capitol Investment Corp. V


 


Dear Sirs:


 


The undersigned hereby offers to purchase
an aggregate of 1,437,500 Class B ordinary shares (“Shares”) of Capitol Investment Corp. V (“Company”)
for an aggregate purchase price, and total consideration, of US$8,333.33.


 


The undersigned represents and warrants that
it has been advised that the Shares have not been registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities
Act”); that it is acquiring the Shares for its account for investment purposes only; that it has no present intention of
selling or otherwise disposing of the Shares in violation of the securities laws of the United States; that it is an “accredited
investor” as defined by Rule 501 of Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act; and that it is familiar with the proposed
business, management, financial condition and affairs of the Company.


 


This letter agreement shall be governed by
the laws of the Cayman Islands.


 


	 	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	 	CAPITOL ACQUISITION FOUNDER V LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ L. Dyson Dryden
	 	 	Name: L. Dyson Dryden
	 	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer




 


Accepted and Agreed:


 


	CAPITOL INVESTMENT CORP. V	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Mark D. Ein	 
	 	Name: Mark D. Ein	 
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLUE WAVE SYSTEMS INC. AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND FOR THE
TWELVE MONTHS THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,895
<SECURITIES>                                     3,062
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                       336
<INVENTORY>                                      4,156
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,603
<PP&E>                                          10,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,401
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           135
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,303
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,544
<SALES>                                         32,679
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,679
<CGS>                                           15,395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,550)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       255
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,805)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (137)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,454)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.90)
        

</TABLE>
# L_2006255EN.01000702.xml

| 19.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 255/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 255/7

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 965/2006 of 29 June 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 327/98 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 176 of 30 June 2006
  )

On page 14, in the second subparagraph of Article 1(6)(b):

for:

‘However, in respect of those parts of the quotas relating to countries for which a certificate of origin is required in accordance with Article 3 of this Regulation or in respect of quotas the origin of which is described as “all countries”, a certificate of origin is not required.’

read:

‘However, in respect of those parts of the quotas relating to countries for which an export licence is required in accordance with Article 3 of this Regulation or in respect of quotas the origin of which is described as “all countries”, a certificate of origin is not required’

---
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



In connection with the Annual Report of Dynamic Health Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Mandeep K. Taneja, Chief Executive Officer and President 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/ Mandeep K. Taneja                
|Mandeep K. Taneja                    
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|June 29, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Monroe J. Carell, Jr., certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Central Parking
Corporation;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

      4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

      b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c)    disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

      5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: December 17, 2004                  By: /s/ MONROE J. CARELL, JR.
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Monroe J. Carell, Jr.
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2208 

To suspend temporarily the duty on p-Dichlorobenzene. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on p-Dichlorobenzene. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. P-DICHLOROBENZENE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 p-Dichlorobenzene (CAS No. 

106–46–7) (provided for in 

subheading 2903.61.30) ........ 2.90% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2208 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

AXEL INOSTROZA

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3369

[ May 16, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Ilona Maxine Holmes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14

- 004650CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Kai Li Aloe Fouts, Special

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas,

Assistant Attor ney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., M AY and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15457-15458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6294]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint

Pricing for the 2012 American Eagle Silver Proof Coin

AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing the price of the 2012 
American Eagle Silver Proof Coin. The coins will be offered for sale at 
a price of $59.95.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B.B. Craig, Associate Director for 
Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701.

[[Page 15458]]

    Dated: March 12, 2012.
Richard A. Peterson,
Deputy Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2012-6294 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1189

___________

In re: Burma Jean Martin, *

*

Debtor, *

------------------------------- *

*

Burma Jean Martin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United

States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of

Arkansas.

Brian Sanford, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant, *

------------------------------- *

*

Richard Cox, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: June 16, 1997

 Filed: June 19,

1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________
The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

The Honorable Mary D. Scott, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern 2

District of Arkansas.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Burma Jean Martin appeals from the district court's affirmance of the

1

bankruptcy court's denial of her petition to convert. After reviewing the 2

bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and

its legal conclusions de novo, we conclude that the

judgment was correct and that no further discussion is

warranted. See In re Montgomery, 37 F.3d 413, 414-15

(8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review). Accordingly, the

judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH

CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1996 and the Consolidated Statement
of Operations for the Year Ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000949244
<NAME> ALTERNATE POSTAL DELIVERY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,858
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,663
<PP&E>                                             892
<DEPRECIATION>                                     659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,061
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,386
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,556)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,226
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,937
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (830)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (836)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    233
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (604)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)


</TABLE>