alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GOODE et al. v. FARMERS PRODUCE CO.

No. 8661.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

June 23, 1937.

Oscar Frink, of San Angelo, for plaintiffs in error.

McCLENDON, Chief Justice.

Suit by the Produce Company against Smith and Davidson, with writ of attachment levied upon 48 cases of eggs. Defendants replevied the eggs, and the judgment was in favor of plaintiff against defendants for the amount of the debt, with foreclosure of the attachment lien. The court also rendered a summary judgment against the sureties on the replevin bond, “if the eggs cannot be located.” The replevin bond was more onerous than required by statute, and therefore must be treated as a common-law forthcoming bond. Therefore summary judgment was improper. Mariany v. Lemaire (Tex.Civ.App.) 83 S.W. 215; Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Hall Novelty & Machine Works (Tex.Civ.App.) 91 S.W. 1092; Elrod Bros. & Phillips v. Rice (Tex.Civ.App.) 99 S.W. 733; Golman v. Johnson (Tex.Civ.App.) 97 S.W. (2d) 334.

The sureties alone have appealed (by writ of error); and the appellee Produce Company has confessed error as to the summary judgment against the sureties, but asks that as to them the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded, and that the judgment be in other respects affirmed.

The appropriate procedure under these circumstances appears to be to dismiss as to the sureties without prejudice to the rights of the Produce Company to proceed against the sureties by plenary suit. See above-cited cases.

The trial court’s judgment against the sureties (plaintiffs in error here) is reversed, and as to them the cause is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the Produce Company to proceed against them in a plenary suit. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

In part reversed and dismissed, and in part affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7671

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. WILLIAM COLBERT, a/k/a Chill Will , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00094

- IMK

- MJA

- 1 )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
William Colbert , Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Lee Bauer, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Colbert appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 404 (b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub . L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (“First Step Act”)

. On appeal, Colbert argues that the district court erred by finding that he was not eligible for a sentence reduction

. Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not err by finding that Colbert was not eligible for the sentence reduction that he sought. See United States v. Riley , 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating that we may affirm on any basis apparent from the record). “Under § 404(b) of the First Step Act, sentencing courts may impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 [(“Fair Sentencing Act”), Pub. L. No. 111

- 220, 124 Stat. 2372,] were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.” United States v. McDonald , 986 F.3d 402, 408

- 09 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). In ruling on a First Step Act motion, a district court “must first determine whether the sentence qualifies for reduction

— i.e., whether it is eligible for consi deration on the merits.” United States v. Lancaster , 997 F.3d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). To be eligible for a reduction under § 404(b), a defendant must have been convicted of a “covered offense,” meaning an offense for which the Fair Sentencing Act reduced the statutory penalty , namely, either 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) or § 841(b)(1)(B). Terry v. United States , 141 S. Ct. 1858, 1863 (2021); First Step Act § 404(a). Defendants who were convicted under § 841(b)(1)(C), in contrast, are not eligible for relief under § 404(b). See Terry , 141 S. Ct. at 1863

- 64. Because Colbert was convicted under3 § 841(b)(1)(C), he is not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 404 (b) of the First Step Act. We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Sidney E. Anderson, principal financial officer of Hawker Beechcraft Notes Company (the
Company), hereby certify that:



|(1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 28, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Sidney E. Anderson                                                                      
|Sidney E. Anderson, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

August 4, 2009
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FIDIA YEO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72888

Agency No. A098-124-143

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Fidia Yeo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse

FILED

JAN 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72888

credibility findings for substantial evidence. Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180

(9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based

on Yeo’s admitted misrepresentations in her initial declaration regarding the 1998

riots. See id. at 1181 (upholding adverse credibility finding where petitioner made

conscious decision to lie). Further, the agency was not compelled to accept Yeo’s

explanations for the false statements, see Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974

(9th Cir. 2011), and the record does not otherwise compel a finding of credibility,

see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, in the

absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition as to Yeo’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th

Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 331 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce 

from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the Exclusive Economic Zone except in accordance with a law authorizing such 

action. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2015 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Commerce from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the Exclusive Economic Zone except 

in accordance with a law authorizing such action. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON AUTHORIZING FINFISH AQUA4 CULTURE IN THE EEZ. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither 

6 the Secretary of the Interior nor the Secretary of Com7 merce may issue any permit or in any other way authorize 

8 any person to conduct commercial finfish aquaculture opVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:54 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H331.IH H331

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 331 IH

1 erations in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United 

2 States (as established by Proclamation Numbered 5030, 

3 dated March 10, 1983), except in accordance with a law 

4 authorizing such action that is enacted after the date of 

5 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 324/2006

of 23 February 2006         

establishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in ICES zone VIII c, IX, X, CECAF 34.1.1 (EC waters) by vessels flying the flag of France

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to common fisheries policy (2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2006 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. It shall be prohibited to retain on board, tranship or land such stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 February 2006.

For the Commission

Jörgen HOLMQUIST            

Director-General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs

----

(1)OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p 59.

(2)OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (OJ L 128, 21.05.2005, p. 1).

(3)OJ L 16, 20.01.2006, p. 1.

----

ANNEX

----
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency 

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 11- 204	 Date: June 8, 2011 

Subject:	 Interim IRS Guidance on Informational Reporting to Employees of the Cost 

of Group Health Insurance Coverage 

On March 29, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2011-28 ("Notice"), which 

provides interim guidance to employers regarding the new Form W-2 reporting requirement for 

employer-sponsored group health coverage. This requirement was added to the Internal Revenue 

Code ("Code") by the Affordable Care Act, Public Law No. 111-149. 

Section 6501(a) of the Code generally provides that employers must provide a written statement 

to each employee – on or before January 31 of the succeeding year – showing the wage paid to 

that employee during the calendar year. Form W-2 is the written statement used to provide this 

information. 

The Affordable Care Act added a new reporting requirement to the Code that requires employers 

to report the cost of employer-provided health care coverage on the Form W-2. The Code 

generally provides that the "aggregate cost" of all "applicable employer-sponsored coverage" 

must be included on the Form W-2. This generally includes coverage under any group health 

insurance plan, including the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. This is 

regardless of whether such coverage is excludable from the employee's gross income under 

Section 106 of the Code and whether it is paid for directly by the employer in the form of a 

premium subsidy, or by the employee on either a pre-tax (through a cafeteria plan) or after-tax 

basis. 

This new reporting requirement is optional for the 2011 year (Form W-2 provided in January 

2012); however, based on the IRS Notice, the requirement will be mandatory for the 2012 tax 

year (Form W-2 provided in January 2013). 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agencies should review the Notice as it provides interim guidance that generally is applicable 

beginning with 2012 Forms W-2. This interim guidance is applicable until further guidance is 

issued. The link to the IRS Notice is: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-11-28.pdf 

If you have any questions about this requirement, please refer to the instructions in the IRS 

Notice. 

Sincerely, 

John O’Brien 

Director 

Healthcare and Insurance 

2
##### 



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
    /s/ JERRY E. THOMPSON
#### S. E. LANE, Plaintiff in Error, v. COMMUNITY NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Defendant in Error.

Application No. 24650.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1940.

Ned Elnor Moore and DeWitt Bowmer, both of Temple, for plaintiff in error.

Thompson, Knight, Baker, Harris & Wright and Pinkney Grissom, all of Dallas, and Cox & Brown and W. R. Brown, all of Temple, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

The application for writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, correct judgment. In entering such order we do' not approve the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals, 133 S.W.2d 200, that the trial court should have sustained an objection made to the special issue upon the amount of recovery for its failure “to give the jury the elements of expense to which the plaintiff would be subjected during her lifetime in providing for her maintenance and support, probable illness or other proper and natural items of expense in connection therewith.” We do not believe that the holding is supported by the authority cited for it.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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:*                         October 2, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby                           ( print page 80279)                        gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 26, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 395 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-753, K2024-46.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22702 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 32

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 on Form 10-Q of Virginia Saving Bancorp, Inc. (the Registrant)
for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) the undersigned executive officers of the Registrant 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) 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ W. Michael FunkName:

W. Michael FunkTitle:

President & Chief Executive
Officer/s/ Noel F. PilonName:

Noel F. PilonTitle:

Senior Vice President & Chief Financial
Officer


May 13, 2008
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 Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, 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 my knowledge,
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.


Date: September 28, 2006                        /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth
Square, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
Attachment 1 

Sample Letters: (1) Notice Of The Right To Request A Waiver Of The Election Time 

Limit And (2) Denial Of Waiver. 

(1) SAMPLE LETTER NOTIFYING EMPLOYEE OF TIME LIMIT WAIVER 

NAME 

ADDRESS 

Dear: 

On (date) we notified you that you were eligible to make an election under the Federal 

Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act (FERCCA). Enclosed is a copy of that 

letter. That letter provided you with the retirement coverage options you could elect and 

gave you 6 months to elect your coverage option. This time limit has expired and you 

have failed to make an election. Therefore the default retirement coverage is (state the 

default coverage). If you believe the reason you did not make your election within the 

time limit was for cause beyond your control, you can request a waiver of the time limit. 

You must request such a waiver in writing and submit documentation to show that you 

exercised due diligence but could not make an election within the time limit because of 

circumstances beyond your control. We will review the documentation submitted and 

provide you with a written notice of our decision. Send your request to: 

(Insert name and address for sending the waiver request). 

 Sincerely, 

Enclosure 

Election notification letter
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

           SUMMARY OF COMPANY'S 2000 MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN (MIP)

                             Pitt-Des Moines, Inc.

   Under the terms of the MIP, a minimum rate of return (threshold) on
stockholders' equity must be achieved before bonuses can be awarded. The
threshold for executive officers was established at the after-tax cost of
capital on the assumption that returns in excess of the threshold would lead to
increases in stockholder value. Once this criteria is met, the total amount of
bonus available for distribution to eligible executive officers, including the
Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") under the MIP is based on a
percentage in excess of the minimum return on stockholders' equity. Individual
bonus amounts paid to the Company's executive officers for services rendered in
2000, including the CEO, were based on a pre-determined percentage limitation
on each individual's base salary (in no case does the applicable limit exceed
100% of base salary) and the percentage of the overall MIP target achieved.
These pre-determined percentages were established by the Compensation
Committee.

   Under the terms of the MIP, the Company's eligible executive officers were
entitled to receive and were awarded bonuses under the MIP for the year ended
December 31, 2000.