alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*

The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2001

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

James T. Dawn, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 12, 2006

Filed: May 12, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James T. Dawn appeals the 180-month prison sentence the district court*

imposed after Dawn pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Counsel first argues the district court’s imposition of the mandatory minimum

sentence mandated by section 924(e) is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
-2-

the Eighth Amendment. This argument fails. See United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d

672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment forbids only sentences grossly

disproportionate to crime); United States v. Johnson, 22 F.3d 674, 682-83 (6th Cir.

1994) (15-year sentence imposed on basis of prior convictions was not grossly

disproportionate to felon-in-possession offense); United States v. Mendoza, 876 F.2d

639, 641 (8th Cir. 1989) (mandatory minimum sentencing does not violate

defendant’s constitutional rights). 

Counsel next argues the district court violated Dawn’s Sixth Amendment rights

because Dawn’s sentence was enhanced based on earlier convictions not proven to

a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument also fails. See United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244 (2005) (any fact, other than earlier convictions, necessary

to support sentence exceeding maximum authorized by facts established by guilty

plea or jury verdict must be admitted by defendant or proved to jury beyond a

reasonable doubt); cf. United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir.)

(district court, not jury, determines whether earlier convictions subject defendant to

be sentenced as career offender), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 457 (2005).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. 

______________________________
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-15-00265-CV 

American Refrigeration Company, 

Inc. 

v. 

Tranter, Inc. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

From the 30th District Court 

of Wichita County (180,092-A) 

October 13, 2016 

Opinion by Justice Gardner 

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the trial court’s order 

denying American Refrigeration Company, Inc.’s special appearance is reversed 

and we render judgment dismissing Tranter Inc.’s claims against American 

Refrigeration Company, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

 It is further ordered that Appellee Tranter, Inc. shall pay all of the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Anne Gardner__________________ 

 Justice Anne Gardner
CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302

I,  Marcia  A.  Pearlstein,  certify  that:

1.     I  have  reviewed this annual report of Telecommunication Products, Inc.;

2.     Based  on my knowledge, this 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 statements were made,
not  misleading  with  respect  to  the  period  covered  by  this  report;

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

4.      The  registrant's  other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing  and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-15e  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  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 registrants internal control
over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the registrant's most recent
fiscal  quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially
affect,  the  registrants  internal  control  over  financial  reporting;  and

5.  The  registrant's  other  certifying officer (s) 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 the registrant's board of
directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent  functions):

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:  July  19,  2004

/s/  Marcia  A.  Pearlstein
____________________
Marcia  A.  Pearlstein
Interim  Chief  Financial  Officer
Exhibit








AMENDING AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT made effective as of the 23rd day of February, 2017.
BETWEEN:
ONCOYLYTICS BIOTECH INC.,
("ONCOLYTICS")
- and -
KIRK LOOK,
(the "Employee")
WHEREAS the Employee is an officer of Oncolytics whose terms of employment are set forth in the Executive Employment Agreement ("Employment Agreement") dated effective January 1, 2013;
AND WHEREAS Oncolytics and the Employee wish to amend the Employment Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Amending Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:
		
	1
	Interpretation


This Amending Agreement is supplemental to and shall form one agreement with the Employment Agreement, and the Employment Agreement and this Amending Agreement shall be read together and have effect so far as practicable as though all the provisions thereof and hereof were contained in one instrument.  In this Amending Agreement, including the recitals hereto, unless there is something within the subject matter or context inconsistent therewith, expressions herein, unless otherwise defined herein, have the same meanings as the corresponding expressions defined in the Employment Agreement.
		
	2
	Amendment to the Employment Agreement


The Employment Agreement Section 3 - Remuneration is amended as follows:
		
	(1)
	Commencing January 1, 2017, Oncolytics shall pay to the Employee a salary of THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND ($345,000.00) CANADIAN DOLLARS per annum, exclusive of bonuses, benefits and other compensation, payable in equal installments of FOURTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($14,375.00) on the 15th and last day of each month.


		
	3
	Confirmation


The parties hereto hereby acknowledge and confirm that, except as specifically amended by the provisions of this Amending Agreement, all of the terms and conditions contained in the Employment Agreement are and shall remain in full force and effect, unamended, in accordance with the provisions thereof.
		
	4
	Miscellaneous


		
	(a)
	This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws in force in the Province of Alberta.  The parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Alberta.


		
	(b)
	The parties shall with reasonable diligence take all action, do all things, attend or cause their representatives to attend all meetings and execute all further documents, agreements and assurances as may be required from time to time in order to carry out the terms and conditions of this Agreement in accordance with their true intent.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amending Agreement as of the date and year first above written.











	
				
	 
	 
	ONCOLYTICS BIOTECH INC.

	Per:
	/s/ Wayne Pisano

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Per:
	/s/ Matt Coffey

	 
	 






/S/ Floriane Riouall                        /S/ Kirk Look
___________________________                ________________________________
Witness                                KIRK LOOK
**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 Auto Underwriters of America, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Dean
      Antonis, as Principal Executive 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, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                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/
                Dean AntonisDean
                AntonisPresident
                and Principal Executive OfficerDate:
                November 15, 2006








This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
#### William Ray BENNETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 33577.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 11, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1962.

George T. Thomas, Big Springs, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Defrauding with worthless check is the offense; the punishment, 40 days in jail.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing complains that an affirmance is not proper because of certain errors in the transcript.

A corrected transcript has been filed which clearly shows that the case was tried during the term of court which began on December 5, 1960 and terminated on January 31, 1961, hence the date “January 5, *i960”,*appearing at the head of the judgment, was intended for “January 5, 1961”, the true date.

If this Court is bound to accept January 5, *1960*as the date the judgment was rendered, it would avail the appellant nothing. *838In such event the appeal would have to be dismissed because notice of appeal was not given in time. The motion for new trial was filed “at 4:50 o’clock P. M. January 5, 1961” and notice of appeal was not given until such motion was overruled on April 24, 1961.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
# EXHIBIT 1

# EXHIBIT 2
#### V. E. BARNES, Commissioner, Department of Economic Security, Appellant, v. Joan C. ADAMS, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 14, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1957.

Paul E. Tierney, Samuel H. Cole, Frankfort, for appellant.

G. B. Johnson, Jr., Ashland, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This proceeding was submitted to the Franklin Circuit Court on an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to KRS 418.020. The crucial question presented for determination is whether the Commissioner of the Department of Economic Security can authorize the payment of a salary from public funds to an employee, who is on leave of absence from her regular duties, for the purpose of attending school.

Joan C. Adams, who holds a bachelor of arts degree, has been employed by the Department of Economic Security of this Commonwealth since 1951. She recently applied for “leave, with pay” in order that she may attend college and better qualify herself to perform the duties and services she renders for the Commonwealth in the field of social service. The Commissioner of the Department of Economic Security advised Joan Adams that he would grant her a leave of absence, but that he would not approve her request for “leave, with pay” while she was attending school for a year in the absence of court approval of the matter.

Whereupon, this proceeding was filed and the circuit court held that the Commissioner could lawfully approve the expenditure of public funds for the purpose of paying the salary of Joan Adams while she was on “educational leave.” However, the circuit judge limited his ruling to the “specific facts and parties in this case.”

We must reverse the judgment because sections 3 and 171 of our State Constitution prohibit the expenditure of public funds for private purposes. We concede that Joan Adams would be benefited by her attendance at school. Nevertheless, the benefit the people of this Commonwealth would reap from this particular venture would be so exceedingly remote it would be unreasonable to hold that the expenditure is for a “public purpose” within the meaning of sections 3 and 171 of our Constitution.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed with directions to the circuit court to enter a judgment in accordance with this opinion.
#### Oliver JAMEYSON, Appellant, v. FARMERS GIN CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 12825.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 13, 1955.

*170Henrichson, Bates. & Hall, Edinburg, for appellant.

Strickland,. Wilkins, Hall & Mills, Mission, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment sustaining, defendant’s motion for summary judgment! The legal point presented is whether the plaintiff has shown a breach of any duty .owing the plaintiff.

Farmers'- Gin Co-operative "Association, through' its manager, informed James J. Kline that if he would move ah accumulation of cotton hull ash from the Gin premises, he could have it free for distribution on his farm. Mr. Kline employed the plaintiff, Oliver Jameyson, to haul the ash to his farm. Jameyson hauled several loads of the ash on a Saturday and the following morning hauled several more loads." About' the middle of the morning, Jamey-son walked upon the mound of ashes, which was seven or "eight feet high, to estimate the number of remaining loads. He then walked down' the side of the ashes toward the comer of’ the burner of - an incinerator, for the purpose of answering a call of nature. In- walking down the side of the mound, his feet suddenly slipped and he slid into' a bed of hot ashes that were smoldering around the burner of the incinerator. There was no smoke or other evidence of burning ashes. This suit is brought for damages occasioned by burns upon Jameyson’s feet and legs.

Whatever may have been the relationship . between the defendant Gin Association and the plaintiff Jameyson prior to his decision to, walk down the side of the mound, when he turned aside from his inspection and walked toward the burner, he became a licensee. See, Meeks v. Coward, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d 845; Coward v. Meeks, 131 Tex. 36, 111 S.W.2d 1105. The Gin Association extended no invitation to plaintiff to approach the- entrance to the burner of the incinerator for a purely personal purpose. When plaintiff was injured, he was a licensee only. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Bridges, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 1248; Bleich & Co. v. Emmett, Tex.Civ.App., 295 S.W. 223; Slough v. W. G. Ragley Lumber Co., Tex. Civ.App., 76 S.W. 779; Cary v. Gray, 98 N.J.L. 217, 221, 119 A. 176; 65 C.J.S. Negligence, § 33; 45 C.J., Negligence, § 242.

The duty owing a gratuitous licensee is discussed in Gonzalez v. Broussard, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d 737. The trial court correctly held that the Gin Association breached no duty toward appellant. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Bridges, supra; Street Realty Co. v. Forrister, Tex.Civ.App., 22. S.W.2d 746; Kruse v. Houston & T. C. R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W. 623.

Judgment affirmed.
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 on Form 10-K of Cytogen Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael D. Becker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.



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.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: March 16, 2005 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Michael D. Becker                                  
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Michael D. Becker President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 11882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03087]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail, USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] & 
Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: February 15, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
February 6, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail, USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] & Parcel 
Select Contract 5 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available 
at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-184, CP2024-190.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-03087 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11825-11826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03169]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2361-056]


ALLETE, Inc.; Notice of Waiver of Water Quality Certification

    On December 20, 2021, ALLETE, Inc. (ALLETE) filed an application 
for a license for the Prairie River Hydroelectric Project in the above 
captioned docket. On December 14, 2022, Minnesota Pollution Control 
Agency received a complete request for

[[Page 11826]]

a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification from 
ALLETE, in conjunction with the above captioned project.
    On December 21, 2022, staff provided Minnesota Pollution Control 
Agency with written notice that the applicable reasonable period of 
time for it to act on the certification request was one (1) year from 
the date of receipt of the request, and that the certification 
requirement for the license would be waived if the certifying authority 
failed to act by December 14, 2023. Because Minnesota Pollution Control 
Agency did not act by December 14, 2023, we are notifying you pursuant 
to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1), that 
waiver of the certification requirement has occurred.

    Dated: February 9, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-03169 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P