alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1859

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Timothy Jermaine Gunn, also known as Doh-Doh lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ Submitted: November 3, 2020 Filed: November 6, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Timothy Gunn appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motions for relief under the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA). See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194.

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.The district court determined Gunn was eligible for relief under the FSA, but declined

to reduce his sentence. In exercising its discretion to deny relief, the district court considered the factors on which it based Gunn’s original sentence and concluded they outweighed Gunn’s arguments in favor of a sentence reduction. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of relief. See United States v. McDonald , 944 F.3d 769, 771 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
EXHIBIT 23.2


                      CONSENT OF HOLLAND SHIPES VANN, P.C.


Independent Auditors' Consent

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the Amended  Current Report on
Form 8-K/A of Lahaina  Acquisitions,  Inc.  dated August 23, 1999 and filed with
the  commission  on September  30, 1999,  of our report dated  September 9, 1999
(except for Note 12 as to which the date is September 21, 1999),  and our report
Dated  September  9, 1999 (except for Note 13, as to which the date is September
21,  1999),   appearing  in  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K/A  of  Lahaina
Acquisitions, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 1999.

/s/HOLLAND SHIPES VANN, P.C.
Atlanta, Georgia
April 25, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from (A) the
Company's unaudited consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of
operations, and consolidated statements of cash flows and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such and (B) the Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ending September 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,104,023
<SECURITIES>                                59,686,742
<RECEIVABLES>                                  139,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    882,711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            64,450,887
<PP&E>                                       1,237,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                 181,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,407,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,344,951
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    94,720,674
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,338,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,407,396
<SALES>                                        139,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,084,058
<CGS>                                          139,583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  670,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,027,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,614,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,614,087)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,614,087)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11.1



Easton Bancorp, Inc.

Computation of Earnings Per Share

Quarter Ended March 31, 2004



|                                                                                           |  |   |        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | - | -------
|Net income                                                                                 |  | $ | 129,310
|                                                                                           |  |   |        
|Average shares outstanding                                                                 |  |   | 764,507
|                                                                                           | 
|Basic earnings per share                                                                   |  | $ | 0.17   
|                                                                                           |  |   |        
|Average shares outstanding                                                                 |  |   | 764,507
|Dilutive average shares outstanding under warrants and options                             |  |   | 56,000 
|Exercise price                                                                             |  | $ | 10.00  
|Assumed proceeds on exercise                                                               |  | $ | 560,000
|                                                                                           | 
|Average market value                                                                       |  | $ | 17.25  
|                                                                                           | 
|Less: Treasury stock purchased with assumed proceeds from exercise of warrants and options |  |   | 32,464 
|Adjusted average shares  diluted                                                          |  |   | 788,043
|Diluted earnings per share                                                                 |  | $ | 0.16   
|                                                                                           |  |   |        



The stock of the
Company is not traded on any public exchange. The average market value is derived from trades with one broker. Private sales may occur where management of the Company is unaware of the sales price.
Order filed August 23, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00640-CV

____________

DAVID LEE STUDER, P.E., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-19260

ORDER

The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed August 10, 2018. The record 

contains no written order granting summary judgment. In response to this court’s 

dismissal letter, appellant contends the summary judgment was granted orally.

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. Without a reporter’s record 

the court cannot determine whether the summary judgment was granted orally. The 

official court reporter for the 165th District Court informed this court that appellant 

had not made arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On August 15, 
2018, the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide 

those issues that do not require a reporter’s record unless appellant, within 15 days 

of notice, provided this court with proof of payment for the record. See Tex. R. App.

P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no reply. 

Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within thirty days 

of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court will 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
### NUM BER 13-0 8-14 2-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ OSC A R BEL TR

A N, JR ., A pp ellan t,

v . CEL ITA SU ZA NN A

C A RPE NT IER, A pp ellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ On ap pe al from th e 2 8th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ____ 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Osc ar

Beltran, Jr ., and appell ee, C eli ta S uz anna C ar penti er , have fil ed a “ Joi nt M oti on for Non sui t of Appea l w it h Preju dic e.” Acco rd ing to the mot ion , t he par ti es hav e reache d an ag re em e n t to s ettl e and compromis e the ir di fferences . Appel lan ts request tha t this Court dism iss the ap pea l.2

T he Cou rt, having consid ered the do cum ent s on file and the joint mo tion to dismiss the a ppeal , i s o f the opi nio n tha t t he moti on s houl d be g ra nted. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 42. 1(a). Th e joint m otion to dism iss is grant ed, and th e a p p e al is hereby DISMISSED. Cos ts w il l be tax ed agai nstappell ant. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( d)( "Abse nt ag re ement of the p arti es, the cour

t w il l tax co stsag ain st the a ppel lan t.")

. P E RC U R I A M Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s t he 10t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.
19596

#### State v. Rivera-Rios

Affirmed
#### State v. Puglisi

16161

5/23/95

Vacated and Remanded
Exhibit 32.2

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                 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 on Form 10-K of Financial
Federal Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended July 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exhange Commission (the
"Report"), Steven F. Groth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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
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
     operations of the 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.



September 22, 2009                /s/ Steven F. Groth
------------------                ----------------------------------
Date                              Steven F. Groth
                                  Chief Financial Officer and Senior
                                  Vice President
#### GEESEY FERGUSON FUNERAL HOME, INC., On Its Own Behalf & Those Persons & Entities Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP.; Centennial Beauregard Cellular L.L.C.; Centennial Caldwell License Corp.; Centennial Hammond Cellular L.L.C.; Centennial Morehouse Cellular L.L.C.; Centennial Lafayette Communications L.L.C.; Lafayette Cellular Telephone Co., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-31062

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 4, 2005.

Chris Michael Trepagnier, Halpern, Danner, Martin & Miles, Madisonville, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph Clebert Chautin, Mark A Balkin, Hardy, Carey, Chautin *&*Balkin, Metairie, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Reviewing the record de novo, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of appellants’ suit for the following reasons:

> 1. Section 7422 of the Internal Revenue Code provides the exclusive remedy for the erroneous or illegal collection of taxes thus preempting recoupment claims against a private entity. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), -(f)(1); *26*Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines, Co.,*110 F.3d 1200, 1204 (5th Cir.1997).

> 2. Section 7422 requires aggrieved taxpayers to exhaust their administrative remedies with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) before bringing suit against that agency for refunds. Because appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and sued the wrong party, the district court properly dismissed the case.

> 3. Whether or not a lawful agent, public or private, of the IRS is holding erroneously collected money or has remitted it to the IRS has no bearing on the application of section 7422. We agree with the Seventh Circuit that, where the government must refund improperly paid taxes to a claimant, whether or not the collector has forwarded those monies to the IRS is a matter between the collector and the government. *See Kaucky v. Southwest Airlines Co.,*109 F.3d 349, 353 (7th Cir.1997) (stating that the IRS has “a number of remedies” against its collection agents who fail to remit taxes that they collect).

> 3. Because determination of whether or not Centennial remitted the erroneously collected funds to the IRS has no bearing on the application of section 7422, the district court did not err in refusing consideration of evidence on that issue.

Affirmed.

*

 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 COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-1057

Filed May 2, 2018

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

NATHAN M. GOAD,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.

Defendant challenges his sentence for burglary in the third degree. 

AFFIRMED. 

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Vidhya K. Reddy, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2

MCDONALD, Judge.

Nathan Goad pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree, in violation of 

Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.6A (2016), and was sentenced to an 

indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed five years. Goad challenges his 

sentence in this appeal, contending the district court considered an impermissible 

factor in imposing sentence. Specifically, the district court considered unproved 

criminal conduct. 

The district court's sentence is cloaked with a strong presumption in its 

favor, and we will not reverse its sentence absent an abuse of discretion. See 

State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). We afford the strong 

presumption of regularity to the sentencing court due to the great confidence we 

place in our judges to exercise their discretion appropriately. See State v. Sailer, 

587 N.W.2d 756, 764 (Iowa 1998). When a defendant challenges a sentence on 

the ground the district court considered unproved criminal conduct, “the issue 

presented is simply one of the sufficiency of the record to establish the matters 

relied on.” State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). 

Goad’s contention the district court relied on unproved criminal conduct is 

without merit. At sentencing, the district court stated it took into consideration 

Goad’s criminal history, including his “controlled substance offense in 2014.” Goad

contends this was impermissible because he was convicted of possession of drug 

paraphernalia and not a controlled substances offense. We disagree. The 

possession of drug paraphernalia is a controlled substance offense. Iowa code 

section 124.414 criminalizes the use of drug paraphernalia, which is defined as “all 

equipment, products, or materials of any kind used or attempted to be used in 
3

combination with a controlled substance.” By its terms, the unlawful possession 

of paraphernalia involves the possession of an item to be used with a controlled 

substance. The offense is codified at chapter 124 of the Iowa Code, “Controlled

Substances,” Division IV, “Offenses and Penalties.” The district court did not rely 

on unproved criminal conduct in imposing sentence.

We affirm Goad’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.
Item_5.2_Glossary definition for “Poultry” / page 1

 Item_5.2_Glossary definition for “Poultry” / page 1 

Annex 25

**GLOSSARY**

***BIOSECURITY***

means a set of management, behavioural and physical measures designed to reduce the *risk* of introduction, establishment and spread of pathogenic agents~~animal diseases, *infections* or *infestations*~~to, within and from~~and within~~ a~~n animal~~*population*.

***BIOSECURITY PLAN***

means a ~~plan~~document or series of documents that identify~~ies~~ potential pathways and factors for the introduction, establishment and spread of pathogenic agents~~disease in a *zone* or *compartment*~~, and describe~~s~~ the corresponding *biosecurity*~~measures~~ to be implemented and the mechanisms to evaluate its performance and to update it~~which are being or will be applied to mitigate the disease *risks*, if applicable, in accordance with the recommendations in the *Terrestrial Code*~~.

***BORDER INSPECTION POST***

means any ~~airport, or any port, railway station or road check-point~~international point of entry for *commodities*~~open to *international trade* of *commodities*,**~~and associated facilities, where ~~import~~veterinary inspection~~s can be~~is performed.

***CONTAINER***

means a non-self-propelled receptable or other rigid structure ~~for holding *animals*~~to carry *commodities*during transportation~~a journey by one or several means of transport~~.

***POINT OF EXIT***

means any point from where *commodities* leave the territory of the *exporting country*. 

***QUARANTINE~~STATION~~ CENTRE***

means an *establishment* under the control of the *Veterinary Authority* where *animals* are maintained in isolation for observation during a specified length of time under *biosecurity* to ~~with no direct or indirect~~ensure no contact with other *animals*and *vectors* when relevant, ~~to ensure~~so that there is no transmission of specified pathogenic agents ~~outside~~into nor out of the *establishment*~~while the *animals* are undergoing observation for a specified length of time and, if appropriate, testing or treatment~~.

***SWILL***

means food scraps or food waste, that contain or have been in contact with *animal products*, which may be used as *feed*.

***VEHICLE/VESSEL***

means any means of conveyance including train, truck, aircraft or ship that is used for carrying~~animals~~*commodities*.

___________________________

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2023	1

Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / February 2023	1

Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / February 2023	1
### NUMBER 13

- 13

- 00221

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN R E PADRON PLUMBING, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez

, Garza, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1

Relator, Padron Plumbing, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion

for temporary relief in the above cause on April 26, 2013

. The Court granted the motion

for temporary relief and requested that the real party in interest , Joe Williamson

Construction Co. Inc. (“Williamson”)

, file a response to the petition

. Williamson filed its

response to the petition for writ of mandamus on May 15, 2013 . Relator shortly

thereafter notified this Court that the parties had reached an agreement to compromise

and settle their differences in the underlying lawsuit. Relator has now filed an

1 See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is

not required to do so.”); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

unopposed motion to dismiss this original proceeding on grounds tha t the parties have

fully and finally compromised and settled all matters in controversy between them.

T he Court, having examined and fully considered “Relator’s Unopposed Motion

to Voluntarily Dismiss Original Proceeding ,” is of the opinion that th e motio n should be

granted. Accordingly, the Court LIFTS the stay previously imposed by this Court,

GRANTS “Relator’s Unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Original Proceeding,” and

DISMISSES this cause A S M O O T without reference to the merits thereof. Pending

motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED AS MOOT

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed th e

6th day of August, 2013

.
20322

#### State v. Valoroso

Affirmed
# C_2019054EN.01003301.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/33

---

Action brought on 17 December 2018 — Siberia Oriental v CPVO (Siberia)

(Case T-737/18)

(2019/C 54/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Siberia Oriental BV (‘t Zand, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Overdijk, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Community plant variety right at issue: Community plant variety right No EU0404 (‘Siberia’ variety of Lilium L.)

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 15 October 2018 in Case A 009/2017

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul or set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or set aside the contested decision;

| — | order CPVO to change the expiration date in the Register to 30 April 2020. |
| --- | --- |

—

order CPVO to change the expiration date in the Register to 30 April 2020.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements;

| — | Infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 or any rule of law relating to its application, including the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 or any rule of law relating to its application, including the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---