alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:22-cr-00066-Z-BR Document 31 Filed 10/26/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 81
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-2171

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Timothy Ray Smith

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

____________ 

Submitted: January 8, 2024 

Filed: January 12, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Ray Smith began his term of supervised release on June 8, 2021, 

after he completed a 72-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. 

Approximately 16 months later, Smith began violating his supervised release 

conditions related to drug use. At the final revocation hearing, Smith admitted to

drug usage—specifically the positive urinalysis and blood test results—and denied 
-2- 

all other allegations, including those related to his arrest arising from a car accident 

on December 30, 2022.

It is undisputed that Smith admitted to Grade C violations, which resulted in 

an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment. The 

court began explaining its sentencing decision by focusing on Smith’s drug use and 

then turned to discussing the allegations that Smith had neither admitted to nor that 

the government had proven. The court imposed a 24-month sentence, stating there 

must be “ramifications” for Smith’s additional unadmitted and unproven conduct. 

On appeal, Smith contends the district court improperly sentenced him based 

on unadmitted and unproven conduct. The government agrees that the district court 

plainly erred when it based its sentence on contested facts and requests that we 

vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. We agree with the parties. See

United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a district 

court commits procedural error when it bases a sentence on unproven, disputed 

allegations). We vacate Smith’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 

______________________________
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-77-000]

Take notice that on November 2, 2000, Midwestern Gas Transmission (Midwestern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, with an effective date of December 1, 2000:

Second Revised Sheet No. 60

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 61

Midwestern states that the purpose of this filing is to revise its tariff in order to incorporate GISB Standards' language and terms. Further, Midwestern states the revisions will bring Midwestern's Tariff more in-line with standard practices across the interstate pipeline grid.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at @http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29333 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Eric S. Yeaman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Turnstone Systems, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Turnstone Systems, Inc. A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Turnstone Systems, Inc., and will be retained by Turnstone Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: March 26, 2008



/s/ Eric S. YeamanEric S. Yeaman Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under
the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of this Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Jennifer M. Davis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect
of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-2 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance
statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo
Bank, National Association.



By:

/s/ Jennifer M. DavisName:

Jennifer M. DavisTitle:

Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate:

August 19, 2016
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2015-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as indenture trustee.
 
  
 
  
 /s/ CHRISTIAN LOWN
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 00547 - CR

DONALD RAY CAGLE APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

----------

On October 19, 2011, as part of a plea bargain agreement, Appellant Donald Ray Cagle pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated and true to a felony repetition enhancement allegation; and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement. O n October 19 , 201 1 , the trial court also certified that this is a plea bargain case and that Appellant has no right to appeal. On October

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

27 , 201 1 , Appellant filed a document with the trial court that we have construed as a notice of appeal

. He then filed an amended notice of appeal on December 5, 2011. The trial court’s certification that Appellant has no right to appeal was filed in this court on December 8, 2011. On December 9 , 201 1 , we notified Appellant that the certification indicating that Appellant had no right to appeal had been filed in this court, and that this appeal could be dismissed unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before December 19 , 201 1

. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d) , 44.3

. Appellant has timely filed a response; however, the response does
not show any grounds for continuing the appeal. Rule 25.2(a )(2) limits the right of appeal in a plea

- bargain case to matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or to cases in which the appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)

. Appellant does not challenge a pretrial ruling on a written motion , and t he trial court’s certification denied permission to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Te x. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, J .; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT , J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: January 12, 2012
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 2/9/96 TENTH CIRCUIT OTTO GRAHAM,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 95-1384 v. (D.C. No. 95-M-1037) ROBERT FURLONG; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, (D. Colo.)

Respondents - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before PORFILIO, McKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the length of petitioner’s2

state court sentence. The district court order dismissing the petition is affirmed for the reasons contained in the magistrate judge’s recommendation and the trial court’s order adopting the recommendation.
AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 117 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 117

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
restrict the requirement of citizenship at birth by virtue of birth in 
  the United States to persons with a legal resident mother or father.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1993

  Mr. Beilenson introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
restrict the requirement of citizenship at birth by virtue of birth in 
  the United States to persons with a legal resident mother or father.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to 
the jurisdiction thereof, of a mother or father who is a legal resident 
of the United States and all persons naturalized in the United States 
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 
The first sentence of section 1 of the fourteenth article of amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.
    ``Section 3. This article shall apply to persons born after the 
date of its ratification.''.

                                 <all>
```
No. 72-5456.

#### Flores *v.*Employers’ Fire Insurance Company of San Antonio, Texas,

409 U. S. 1046. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.
#### GREEN v. STATE.

No. 21395.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 29, 1941.

R. W. Webb, of Snyder, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possessing beer in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of one hundred dollars.

Fred W. Winch, an inspector of the Texas Liquor Control Board, testified that he bought eight 12-ounce cans of beer from appellant in Scurry County on the 24th of June, 1940. It was shown by agreement that the county was a dry area. Testifying in his own behalf, appellant denied the sale.

No bills of exception are brought forward.

The evidence is deemed sufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER curiam:

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00265

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 323rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 323

- 104719

- 17

Before Gabriel, Kerr, and Pittman , JJ. Opinion by Justic e Gabriel 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### A.S.

- J., J.W., AND 

### J.W., C HILDREN2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant R.W. (Mother) attempts to appeal the trial court’ s final order terminating her parental rights to her three children. Because Mother has failed to invoke this court’s jurisdiction, we dismiss her attempted appeal.
On Febru a ry 6, 2018, the trial court signed a termination order , concluding that clear and convincing evidence showed that Mother had filed an unrevoked affidavit of relinquishment of her parental rights and that termination was in the children’s best
int erest. On August 23, 2018

— more than six months after the termination order

— Mother filed a letter in the trial court stating that she wanted to “withdraw” her affidavit signature and “appeal the de [ c ] ision.” We notified Mother that her notice of appeal wa s untimely and asked her, or any other affected party, to respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 42.3(a), 44.3. Mother responded that she had been “confused on trial dates,” but failed to proffer any legal ground up on which we could base our jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed twenty days after judgment or order signed in accelerated appeal) , 28.4(a) (classifying termination appeals as accelerated ) ; In re
K.A.F. , 160 S.W .3d 923, 924, 928 (Tex. 2005) (affirming jurisdictional dismissal of appeal from order in termination suit because notice of appeal filed more than twenty days after judgment signed); In re D.A. , No. 02

- 1 5

- 00346

- CV, 2015 WL 9244637,

at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort W orth Dec. 17, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing
attempt ed appeal from final order in termination suit “[b]ecause Appellant’s notice of3

appeal was u ntimely and was filed after the expiration of the [fifteen

- day] period for requesting an extension”)

. Mo ther’s notice of appeal, filed more than six months after the final judgment of termination was signed , was untimely; thus, we can do nothing more than dismiss her attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f) ; Kilroy v. Kilroy , 1 37 S.W.3d 780, 783 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.)

.
/s/ Lee Gabriel
Lee Gabriel Justice
Delivered: September 20, 2018
Form of Stock Certificate



 Exhibit 4.2 

 

	
	 






  
 Exhibit 4.2 
 NUMBER SHARES LMFUNDING AMERICA, INC.
LMFUNDING.COM INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP 502074 10 7 THIS CERTIFIES THAT is the owner of FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE COMMON SHARES, $0.001 PAR VALUE, OF LM FUNDING AMERICA,
INC. transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned COMMON and registered by the Transfer Agent and
Registrar. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY (Brooklyn, New York)
TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Dated: CORPORATE SECRETARY CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD 







 



 
 THE BOARD OF THIS CORPORATION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE AND DETERMINE THE RELATIVE
RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK OTHER THAN COMMON STOCK. THIS CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO ANY SHAREHOLDER UPON WRITTEN REQUEST SENT TO ITS PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES, AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL STATEMENT OF
THE BOARD’S AUTHORITY TO CREATE AND DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK AS WELL AS THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE SHARES OF EACH CLASS OR SERIES
THEN OUTSTANDING OR AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED. 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 entireties JT TEN – as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UTMA – Custodian (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (State) Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For value received hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL
ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the capital 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 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. SIGNATURE GUARANTEED
ALL GUARANTEES MUST BE MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (SUCH AS A BANK OR BROKER) WHICH IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE SECURITIES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION PROGRAM (“STAMP”), THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM
(“MSP”), OR THE STOCK EXCHANGES MEDALLION PROGRAM (“SEMP”) AND MUST NOT BE DATED. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
OCTOBER TERM, 1737.

#### Thomas Wells *against*William Gheselin, garnishee of John Peale.

THIS was an attachment on *non est.*A special verdict Was found, stating that *John Peale,*the principal defendant, at *October*term, 1732, recovered a judgment In the Provincial Court, against *William*Parks, and that *William*Gheselin, the garnishee; together with *Henry Donaldson*and the said *Parks,*superseded the judgment according to the act of Assembly, and-that the debt and costs were due when the attachment was laid in the hands of *Gheselin,*the security.

Judgment of condemnation for the sum attached, and costs»

Lib. E. J. No.'4. fol. 155.