alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30215

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANK H. BETHLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(98-CR-159-ALL-C)

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

August 20, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Frank H. Bethley appeals his sentence,

specifically complaining of a two-level upward departure in his

offense level based on two arrests for which he was not convicted.

We previously vacated Bethley’s sentence and remanded the case for

resentencing, holding that the departure was improper because the

district court failed to find Bethley guilty of the unadjudicated

offenses by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v.

Bethley, No. 99-30546 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2000). On remand, the

district court reimposed the same upward departure after finding by
2

a preponderance of the evidence that Bethley had committed the

offenses. On appeal, Bethley asserts that the district court

relied on an improper basis to depart from the applicable

Sentencing Guideline range because it relied only on the presentence report (PSR) to determine the facts regarding the

underlying offenses. Generally, a PSR bears sufficient indicia of

reliability to be considered as evidence at sentencing. United

States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 831-32 (5th Cir. 1998). We have

never stated that the report cannot be used for determining the

guilt of an individual who was arrested but not convicted. See

United States v. Cantu-Dominguez, 898 F.2d 968, 970-71 (5th Cir.

1990).

Bethley also contends that the district court improperly

concluded that the charges were dismissed after he pleaded guilty

to an offense in federal court, because he actually was convicted

by a jury of the federal charges. Bethley failed to object to this

factual finding in the district court, so we review it for plain

error. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.

1994)(en banc). Bethley cannot show that any error by the district

court in its determination of the disposition of the prior federal

proceeding affected his substantial rights. The sentence imposed

by the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.1

 



INCORPORATED   UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AUTHORIZED: 150,000,000 COMMON STOCK   SHARES, $0.001 PAR VALUE PER SHARE SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS This   Certifies That is the owner of Fully Paid and Non-Assessable Common Stock,   $0.001 Par Value of RUBIUS THERAPEUTICS, INC. transferable on the books of   this Corporation in person or by attorney upon surrender of this Certificate   duly endorsed or assigned. This Certificate and the shares represented hereby   are subject to the laws of the State of Delaware, and to the Certificate of   Incorporation and the Bylaws of the Corporation, as now or hereafter amended.   This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent. IN   WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by   the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers and to be sealed   with the facsimile seal of the Corporation. Dated: a CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER   CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Countersigned: AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY,   LLC 6201 15th Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11219 By Transfer Agent and Registrar   Authorized Officer CUSIP 78116T 10 3 


    




 








 



RUBIUS   THERAPEUTICS, INC. AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC TRANSFER   FEE: AS REQUIRED The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on   the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written   out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants   in common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -   Custodian JT TEN - as joint tenants with right (Cust) (Minor) of survivorship   and not as under Uniform Gifts to Minors tenants in common Act (State)   Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.   PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE FOR   VALUE RECEIVED, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE PRINT OR   TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE Shares of   the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby   irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the   books of the within-named Corporation, with full power of substitution in the   premises. Dated: 20 , Signature: X Signature(s) Guaranteed: Signature: X THE   SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN   UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR   ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY   AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan   Associations and Credit Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE   GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
In the 

Missouri Court of Appeals

Western District

WOODGLEN ESTATES ASSOCIATION,

Respondent,

v.

DELLA JOAN DULANEY, ET AL.,

Appellants.























WD77891

OPINION FILED:

April 21, 2015

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri

The Honorable Kenneth R. Garrett, Judge

Before Division One: James Edward Welsh, P.J., 

Thomas H. Newton, and Karen King Mitchell, JJ.

Della Joan Dulaney and Everett W. Dulaney, co-trustees of the Della Joan Dulaney Trust, 

appeal the circuit court's denial of their motion for reconsideration to enforce a 2013 settlement 

agreement regarding an action that was disposed of in 2012 when this court affirmed a judgment 

entered by the circuit court awarding Woodglen Estates Association $54,500 in damages and cost 

and attorney's fees. Woodglen Estates Ass'n v. Dulaney, 359 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. App. 2012). We 

dismiss the Dulaneys' appeal, however, because the Dulaneys are appealing from a motion that is 

not authorized by rule or law. 
2

"'[A] motion for reconsideration has no legal effect because no Missouri rule provides for 

such a motion.'"

1

 McElroy v. Eagle Star Group, Inc., 156 S.W.3d 392, 402 (Mo. App. 2005), 

superseded in part by Rule as stated in Pyle v. FirstLine Transp. Sec., Inc., 230 S.W.3d 52, 58 n.3 

(Mo. App. 2007) (quoting Hinton v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Mo. App. 

2003)). Although we recognize that appellate courts have treated motions for reconsideration as 

motions for new trial so that appellants are not denied substantive review of appeals, Hinton, 99 

S.W.3d at 459, Koerber by and through Ellegood v. Alendo Bldg. Co., 846 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Mo. 

App. 1992), we cannot extend that same courtesy in this case because there is nothing from 

which the Dulaneys can file a motion for new trial. Indeed, the judgment in this case was final in 

2012.2 We, therefore, dismiss the Dulaneys' appeal.

/s/JAMES EDWARD WELSH 

James Edward Welsh, Presiding Judge

All concur.

 

1We recognize that the circuit court denominated its order as a "Judgment" and that it said that the denial of 

the motion for reconsideration was "the final order of the Court regarding this matter," but those declarations do not 

make the denial of a motion for reconsideration an appealable order.

2We note that the Dulaneys may have a separate cause of action for specific performance of the settlement 

agreement. See Voyles v. Voyles, 388 S.W.3d 169 (Mo. App. 2012). "[T]he question of whether the parties entered 

into an enforceable settlement agreement is governed by contract law." Id. at 172. "To show a legal, valid 

settlement agreement, one must prove the essential elements of a contract: offer, acceptance and consideration. The 

creation of a valid settlement agreement requires a meeting of the minds and a mutual assent to the essential terms of 

the agreement." Id. (citations omitted).
950 P.2d 707

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

November 18, 1997

19788

#### CIE. Soft Corp. v. Shane Intern., Inc.; Shane Intern. Inc. v. Tanaka

Vacated and Remanded
Exhibit 99.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I,  Michael McManus, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of MISONIX, INC.
(the  "Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended
September  30,  2002  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the requirements of
Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
780(d));  and

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

Dated: November 13, 2002

                               /s/ Michael McManus, Jr.
                               -----------------------------
                               Michael McManus, Jr.
                               President, Chief Executive Officer


                                       19
<PAGE>
Exhibit
10.1 


 


Extension
of Agreement to Organize


 


and


 


Operate
A Joint Venture


 


Pursuant
to ARTICLE X, TERMINATION, the Parties hereto to that certain Agreement to Organize and Operate a Joint Venture dated June 14,
2018 (“Agreement”), as amended on June 29, 2018, hereby agree to extend the Closing Date of the Agreement up to and
including Friday, August 17, 2018.


 


All
other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of July 16, 2018.


 


	 	 	Digital
Power Lending, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	 	By:_/s/
William Corbett____________
	 	 	William
Corbett, Manager
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	QPAGOS
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	By:_/s/
Gaston Pereira______________
	 	 	Gaston
Pereira, Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	Innovative
Payment Systems, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	By:_/s/
Greg Rovner_______________
	 	 	Greg
Rovner
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Interstate Movement for Wild-Caught

Cervids

Last Modified: 

Print

No farmed or captive deer, elk, or moose may be moved interstate unless it meets

the requirements listed in Part 81 of Title 9 in the Code of Federal Regulations.

View the Requirements
Related Links

Agreement for Interstate Movement of Wild Cervids

Surveillance and Testing Requirements for Interstate Transport of Wild Caught

Cervids

Factsheet: Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) Requirements for Cervidae

Species Moving Interstate

Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55—Control of Chronic Wasting

Disease 

Chronic Wasting Disease Program Standards
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Darryl M.Edelstein, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bresler & Reiner, Inc.(“the Company”);

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

4.                The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theCompany and have:

a)                Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

b)               Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c)                Disclosed in thisreport any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                The Company’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)                All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)               Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April2, 2007
|        |   | /s/ DARRYL M. EDELSTEIN                              |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Darryl M. Edelstein                                  |
|   |   | Executive Vice President—Finance & CFO |

 

----
Order entered June 16 , 202 2

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00511 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 0051 2 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 0051 3 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 0051 4 - CR OSCAR MALIK KING , Appellant

V. TH E STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 17 - 71539 - M , F2 1 - 00153 - M,

F21 - 00154 - M & F21 - 00 155 - M

O RDER Before the Court is the State ’ s June 14, 2022 s econd motion for ad ditional time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the State ’ s brief filed as of the date of this order. /s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
July 27, 2005

25826

#### Peiler v. Yogi

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusCapitol Hill Facts
How much did it cost to build the Capitol?
        
                  The U.S. Capitol is a unique structure, as it has been built in successive phases over the past two centuries. The estimated historical cost of the United States Capitol as of 2003 was $133 million. This includes the original building (the Rotunda and the north and south wings) as it stood in 1824 ($2.4 million), the cast-iron dome added in 1866 ($1 million), and the extensions (which house the present House and Senate chambers as well as office and support spaces) completed in 1867 ($8.1 million).

Numerous additions, renovations and modernization efforts made throughout the years added another $122 million. Improvements to the Capitol Grounds have an estimated historical cost of $33.8 million as of fiscal year 2003; these include such items as landscaping, sidewalks, and security features. This estimate does not include the addition of the newest addition to the Capitol, the Capitol Visitor Center, which was constructed after 2003.

Note that these numbers are given in historical dollars spent and have not been inflated to reflect current-day replacement value. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85714-85715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12280]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Joan Jonas: Good Night Good 
Morning'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Joan Jonas: Good Night Good 
Morning'' at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of 
cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or 
display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddaeb8bea9b4b2b3efe9e8e49daea9bca9b8f3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f88b9d9b8c919796cacccdc1b88b8c998c9dd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

[[Page 85715]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 
2021.

Nicole L. Elkon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2023-26987 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


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

18107

4/29/97

Affirmed
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 of Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
of our report dated February 4, 2000, included in the 1999 annual report to
stockholders of the Company, which is incorporated by reference in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                                /s/ RADICS & Co., LLC
                                                --------------------------
                                                RADICS & CO., LLC



March 29, 2000

Pine Brook, New Jersey
#### Cleo PEREA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Samuel SMITH, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 13667.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 17, 1974.

Larry R. Keller of Salt Lake Legal Defender Association, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., William W. Barrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

TUCKETT, Justice:

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Plaintiff was paroled from the Utah State Prison on March 13, 1973. On or about October 1, 1973, complaint was made to the Board of Pardons by the Department of Adult Probation and Parole and a warrant of arrest was issued by the Board for the arrest of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Salt Lake County Jail for a period of approximately one month. The plaintiff was approached by an agent of the Department of Adult Probation and Parole at which time it appears that the plaintiff was served with a notice of his violation of the terms of his parole; It is the plaintiff’s contention that at that time he was not informed as to his rights to have counsel represent him, but the record shows that at that time he waived a prerevocation hearing and that a hearing was had before the Board of Pardons on November 21, 1973, at which time the plaintiff was represented by an attorney. At the time of the hearing before the Board of Pardons the plaintiff admitted violation of the terms of his parole, and he was thereafter returned to prison.

The court below found and concluded that the plaintiff had not been denied his constitutional rights in the proceeding which resulted in his recommitment to prison. After a careful consideration of the record, we must conclude that the plaintiff was accorded the rights specified by the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Morrissey v. Brewer1 and Gagnon v. Scarpelli.2

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD, ELLETT and CROCKETT, JJ„ concur.

1

. 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484.

2

. 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656.
879 P.2d 558

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Greenwell v. Bd. of Education....

16008

7/18/94

Affirmed