alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19

- 0735 Filed November 4, 2020

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

GREG M. REDDEN , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, John C. Nelson
,
District Associate Judge.

Greg Redden appeals a sentencing order. SENTENCE VACATED IN

PART AND REMANDED FOR RESE NTENCING.

Martha J. Lucey
, State Appellate Defender, and Stephan J. Japuntich
, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout , Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J.
, and May and Ahlers, JJ.2

MAY , Judge

. Greg Redden stole merchandise from Fleet Farm

. He pl ed guilty to theft in

the third degree. See Iowa Code §§ 714.1 (1) , 714.2(3) (201 8 ). The district court
sentenced Redden to prison. The sentencing order suspended a fine but imposed

court costs. The order also provided that Redden “shall pay not less than $50
monthly and the first payment shall be due within 30 days from the date of this
order, until the fine, surcharges, restitution (if ordered) and court costs are paid in

full.”
On appeal, Redden raises a single issue: D id the district court err by
requiring Redden to pay court costs before determin ing Redden’s reasonable
ability to pay court costs ? We answer that question in the affirmative. Iowa Code

section 910.2(1)(a)(3) provide s that the district court may only order restitution for
costs after finding the defendant h as a reasonable ability to pay. 1 State v. Hellman
,
No. 18

- 1179, 2020 WL 110283, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020) (citing State v.
Albright
, 925 N.W.2d 144, 159 (Iowa 2019) )

. We vacate the restitution provisions

1 Iowa Code chapter 910 was recently amended to presume a defendant has the ability to pay and shift the burden to the defendant to request an ability

- to

- pay determination. See 2020 Iowa Acts ch. 1074, § 72 (codified at § 910.2A ( Supp. 202 0 )) (enacting portions of Senate File 457 and providing “[a]n offender is presumed to have the reasonable ability to make restitution payments for the full amount of category ‘ B ’ restitution”). However, our supreme court issued an order clarifying the recent amendments apply to defendants sentenced on or after June 25, 2020. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Supervisory Order, In the matter of Interim Procedures Governing Ability to Pay Determinations and Conversion of Restitution Orders ¶ (C) (July 7, 2020) (“A defendant sentenced on or after June 25, 2020, shall be subject to the requirements of S.F. 457.”).3

of the sentencing order and remand to the district court to order restitution

consistent with Albright
, 925 N.W.2d at 158

– 62. 2

SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR

RESENTENCING.

2 See State v. Doran , No. 18

- 1086, 2020 WL 5651278, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2020) (remandi ng for resentencing in accordance with Albright and noting recent statutory changes to restitution were not applicable)

.
# Jurnalul Oficial C 42A/9 fe

| | ISSN 1977-1029 |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 42A |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 609 februarie 2017 |

ISSN 1977-1029

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 42A

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 609 februarie 2017

---

| Informarea nr. | Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Anunţuri |
| | PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE |
| | Eurojust |
| 2017/C 42 A/01 | Notificare de post vacant pentru funcția de director administrativ (gradul AD 14) în cadrul Eurojust — Haga (Țările de Jos) — 17/EJ/01 | 1 |

Informarea nr.

Cuprins

Pagina

V   Anunţuri

PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE

Eurojust

2017/C 42 A/01

Notificare de post vacant pentru funcția de director administrativ (gradul AD 14) în cadrul Eurojust — Haga (Țările de Jos) — 17/EJ/01

1

---

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

V Anunţuri

PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE

Eurojust

| 9.2.2017 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | CA 42/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2017

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

CA 42/1

---

Notificare de post vacant pentru funcția de director administrativ (gradul AD 14) în cadrul Eurojust — Haga (Țările de Jos) — 17/EJ/01

(2017/C 042 A/01)

Eurojust lansează procedura de recrutare în vederea ocupării postului de director administrativ (gradul AD 14) în cadrul Eurojust – Haga (Țările de Jos). Eurojust este un organism al Uniunii Europene, înființat în 2002, cu scopul de a stimula și îmbunătăți coordonarea anchetelor și a urmăririlor penale între autoritățile judiciare competente ale statelor membre ale Uniunii Europene, în cazuri de crimă organizată și transfrontalieră. Eurojust este compus dintr-un Colegiu de procurori, judecători sau ofițeri de poliție, care sunt responsabili cu organizarea și funcționarea acestuia. Directorul administrativ este responsabil, sub supravegherea președintelui Colegiului, de administrarea de zi cu zi a Eurojust și de gestionarea personalului. Pentru detalii legate de postul vacant și procedura de depunere a candidaturilor, vă rugăm să consultați pagina noastră de internet:

http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/careers/vacancies/Pages/Vacancies.aspx

Termenul-limită pentru depunerea candidaturilor este stabilit pe 17 martie 2017, miezul nopții CET.

---
#### GUARANTY SECURITIES CORPORATION et al. v. MARSHALL.

No. 10965.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

July 29, 1940.

For former opinion, see 140 S.W.2d 262.

Cole, Patterson & Cole, of I-Iouston, for movants, L. O. Tarrant and John Massey.

Lewis W. Cutrer, of Houston, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

In the case of Guaranty Securities Corporation et al., plaintiffs in error v. Marshall, Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 262, L. O. Tarrant and John Massey were sureties on the supersedeas bond executed by the plaintiffs in error. As will appear from the opinion in that case, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court as to item No. 1, being for $2,050; and we reversed and remanded the judgment of the trial court as to item No. 2, being for $1,908; and we reversed and rendered the judgment of the trial court as to item No. 3, being for $3,600. Judgment was summarily rendered against the sureties for the sum of $2,050, and our clerk sent a copy of the judgment to the attorneys of both sides on the date judgment was entered. No application for a writ of error to the Supreme Court was filed, and thereafter, in regular course, the mandate on the judgment was regularly issued from this court on June 24, 1940, and filed in the trial court on the next day.

On July 6, 1940, L. O. Tarrant and John Massey, sureties as aforesaid, filed a motion in this court for the recall of the mandate issued by this court, and that this court correct its judgment by vacating so much thereof as awarded summary judgment against the sureties on the super-sedeas bond for the sum of $2,050. The said Tarrant and Massey also have moved for an injunction enjoining the execution of this court’s judgment against the sureties on the supersedeas bond, and. in that connection show that the sheriff of Montgomery County has levied execution on lands belonging to the said Tarrant and will sell the same at execution sale on the 6th day of August, 1940, unless enjoined from so doing.

We have no doubt that Tarrant and Massey are legally bound by the supersedeas bond to pay the amount of the judgment affirmed against plaintiffs in error. In rendering summary judgment against the sureties on the supersedeas bond that they pay the amount of the judgment affirmed against the plaintiffs in error, we necessarily decided that we had the jurisdiction which we exercised. We decline now to reopen the case, after the mandate has been filed in the trial court, to reconsider the judgment rendered by us in said cause. It is not in the public interest that a mandate be recalled, and the judgment upon which it is issued be reconsidered upon grounds which should have been presented, if at all, when the case was before us, and before mandate had issued on the judgment. We therefore, refuse the motion to recall the mandate and to consider the judgment.

Upon the same consideration, it is obvious that the motion for injunction should also be refused, which is accordingly done.
**Internet Marketing & Videography**

**JB S Media**  **1329 Hwy 395 N Ste 10**
**- 144, Gardnerville, NV 89410**  **775**
**- 544** 
**- 3261**  

# Drone Flying procedures

**Setting up for flight**

1. Upon arrival to property look over premises and notice the structure and surrounding area 2. After surveying area mentally get a flight plan , taking in consideration of trees, power lines, poles, and other obstructions 3. Now setting up drone in a clear area to set for takeoff and landing area. Make sure that there are no obstructions over this area 4. You must check all aspects of the drone to ensure that it will operate with full abilities. 5. Now attach the props so that they are tight and fully functional 6. Power on controller first so that control of drone is established (make sure the battery is fresh and meter reads full) 7. Install a fully charg ed battery into drone (make sure the battery is fresh and meter reads full) 8. Now power drone on 9. Make sure that connectivity is established with controller to drone 10. Set the compass and ensure the GPS is strong 11. Set the home parameters so that the drone safety features can return it to the takeoff and landing location 12. Set the ceiling to 200ft so that the drone stays below flight limitations 13. Set altitude to 100ft so that you are above any obstructions and can get a clear view of the property 14. Now the drone can takeoff 15. Once leveled at the set altitude circle property so that the flight pattern is clear and unobstructed 16. Now start media to record the property in a complete and flattering view 17. Once the desired media is captured return drone to a safe landing ap proach 18. Now bring the drone back to the takeoff and landing location 19. Once on the ground bring all the functions of drone to a stop 20. Make sure the props are completely stopped and no one can activate controller to engage motion 21. Power the drone off and remove the battery 22. Now remove the props 23. Controller can be turned off at this time and the drone can be put away
----

| Broadband      Networks, Inc.            | (Tier      1)                             |
|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| CellemetryXG      Customer Services, LLC | (Tier      1)                             |
| DCX      Systems, Inc.                   | (Tier      1)                             |
| Digilog,      Inc.                       | (Tier      1)                             |
| Airdesk,      LLC                        | (Tier      1)                             |
| Orbit      One, LLC                      | (Tier      1)                             |
| Numerex      Investment Corp.            | (Tier      1)                             |
|                                     | BNI      Solutions LLC                    | (Tier      2) |
|                                     | DCX      Systeems (Australia) Pty Limited | (Tier      2) |
|                                     | Numerex      Solutions LLC                | (Tier      2) |
|                                     | Airdesk      Mobile LLC                   | (Tier      2) |
| Cellemetry      LLC1                | (Tier      1)                             |
|                                     | Uplink      Security, Inc.                | (Tier      2) |

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7827

In Re: DARUS ZEHRBACH, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-05-79; CR-00-33) Submitted: January 27, 2006 Decided: February 9, 2006 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darus Zehrbach, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Darus Zehrbach has filed a motion for an order of mandamus on an expedited consideration basis, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the motion to expedite and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 40023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16706]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    The following notice of a scheduled meeting is published pursuant 
to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-
409, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIMES AND DATES: The Commission has scheduled a meeting for the 
following date: July 10, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, Lobby 
Level Hearing Room (Room 1300).

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission has scheduled this meeting to 
consider various rulemaking matters, including the issuance of proposed 
rules and the approval of final rules. The agenda for this meeting is 
available to the public and posted on the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.cftc.gov. In the event that the time or date of the meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and 
place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: David A. Stawick, Secretary of the 
Commission, 202-418-5071.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-16706 Filed 7-3-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
**EXHIBIT 21**
**Subsidiaries of Numerex Corp**.     Broadband Networks, Inc. (Tier 1)DCX Systems, Inc. (Tier 1)Digilog, Inc. (Tier 1)Numerex Investment Corp. (Tier 1)          BNI Solutions LLC (Tier 2)          DCX Systems (Australia) Pty Limited (Tier 2)          Numerex Solutions LLC (Tier 2)          MobileGuardian LLC (Tier 2)Cellemetry LLC 1              Uplink Security, Inc. (Tier 2)
Tier 1 subsidiaries are those owned directly by Numerex Corp. Tier 2 are subsidiaries of NumerexCorp.’s subsidiaries.
1Prior to March 28, 2003 the Company owned 60%. Cingular Wireless LLC owned the remaining 40%.After March 28, 2003 the Company owned 100%.
61
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Quarterly  Report of Titanium  Metals  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly  Report"),
I, J. Landis Martin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly  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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  result  of
          operations of the Company



/s/ J. Landis Martin_______
---------------------------
J. Landis Martin
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1286 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1286

 To amend the Act titled ``An Act to provide for the establishment of 
   the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes'' to 
   clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to accept 
 donations of lands that are contiguous to the Indiana Dunes National 
                   Lakeshore, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2009

Mr. Visclosky (for himself and Mr. Donnelly of Indiana) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Act titled ``An Act to provide for the establishment of 
   the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes'' to 
   clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to accept 
 donations of lands that are contiguous to the Indiana Dunes National 
                   Lakeshore, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF CONTIGUOUS LANDS.

    Section 19 of the Act titled ``An Act to provide for the 
establishment of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other 
purposes'' (16 U.S.C. 460u-19) is amended by designating the existing 
text of the section as subsection (a), and by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(b) For purposes of subsection (a), lands may be considered 
contiguous to other lands if the lands touch the other lands, or are 
separated from the other lands by only a public or private right-of-
way, such as a road, railroad, or utility corridor.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Clifford H. Slavin, Appellant, v Steven A. Victor, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered July 16, 1990, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS court that defendant has alleged, with sufficient particularity, a pattern of misrepresentation that spells out fraud in the inducement. Promissory notes given in exchange for purchase of a business cannot be viewed in a vacuum where genuine issues of fact exist as to whether the transaction was induced by misrepresentation *(Epstein v Scally,*99 AD2d 713), even where the obligation is termed "unconditional” *(see, Millerton Agway Coop. v Briarcliff Farms,*17 NY2d 57). In alleging the materiality and centrality of the alleged fraud to the underlying transaction, defendant has appropriately offered the affidavit of the president of the two companies, who discovered the financial misdeeds and can speak from first-hand knowledge as to the nature of the misrepresentations *(Magi Communications v Jac-Lu Assocs.,*65 AD2d 727, 729).

Partial summary judgment is also inappropriate at this point because it is still unclear what the extent of the alleged corporate diversion was, and whether those misdeeds so eroded the companies financially as to affect their desirability for purchase in the underlying transaction. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1532 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1532

To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to limit the age restrictions 
                     imposed upon aircraft pilots.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 1993

   Mr. Lightfoot (for himself, Mr. Stump, Mr. Wise, Mr. Porter, Mr. 
     Ackerman, Mr. Thomas of Wyoming, Mr. Minge, Mr. Jacobs, Mrs. 
  Vucanovich, Mr. Leach, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Hefley, Mr. 
Hancock, Mr. Clement, and Mrs. Bentley) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to limit the age restrictions 
                     imposed upon aircraft pilots.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AGE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON AIRCRAFT PILOTS.

    Section 602(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 
1422(b)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(3) Limitation on age restrictions.--The Administrator 
        shall not, solely by reason of the age of a person, if such 
        person is less than 65 years of age--
                    ``(A) refuse to issue an airman certificate to, or 
                refuse to renew such certificate for, such person, if 
                such person is applying for the issuance or renewal of 
                such certificate in order to serve or continue to serve 
                as a pilot of an aircraft; or
                    ``(B) require an air carrier to terminate the 
                employment of, or refuse to employ, such person as a 
                pilot on an aircraft of such air carrier.''.

                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive 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 Quarterly Report of Packeteer, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the three months ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Dave Côté, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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. Date: April 29, 2005
    
    /s/
    
    DAVE CÔTÉDave CôtéPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 32