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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-41018

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSHUA CALHOUN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CR-1159-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joshua Calhoun appeals from his resentencing following his guilty plea

conviction of high speed flight from an immigration checkpoint. As a special

condition of supervised release, the district court, in its written judgment,

ordered Calhoun to participate in “anger management counseling as deemed

necessary and approved by the probation officer.” When imposing the sentence

orally, the district court merely stated that Calhoun would be subject to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 7, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-41018 Document: 00511879306 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2012
No. 11-41018

conditions of supervision including “anger management” and said nothing about

the probation officer’s role.

Calhoun argues that the district court impermissibly delegated to the

probation officer its Article III judicial function to determine whether he would

have to participate in anger management counseling; alternatively, he argues

that the sentence must be vacated and remanded because the district court was

unclear whether it intended to delegate to the probation officer the authority to

decide whether Calhoun would have to participate in anger management

counseling or whether the district court merely intended for the probation officer

to implement anger management counseling that it had mandated. 

Because the district court did not use the disputed language regarding the

probation officer’s involvement at sentencing, and therefore gave Calhoun no

opportunity to object before the entry of the written judgment, abuse of

discretion review applies. See United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 381 (5th

Cir. 2006). Without reaching Calhoun’s constitutional argument, we conclude,

as we have in several similar unpublished cases, that the written judgment

creates an ambiguity regarding whether the district court intended to delegate

authority not only to implement treatment but to decide whether treatment was

needed. See, e.g., United States v. Turpin, 393 F. App’x 172, 174 (5th Cir. 2010);

United States v. Vasquez, 371 F. App’x 541, 542-43 (5th Cir. 2010); United States

v. Lopez-Muxtay, 344 F. App’x 964, 965-66 (5th Cir.2009). Accordingly, we

vacate the judgment and remand the case so that the district court may clarify

the condition of supervised release at issue.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

2

Case: 11-41018 Document: 00511879306 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2012
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION – Chief Executive Officer**

I, Alan B. Miller, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Universal Health Services, 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 necessaryto 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder 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 beingprepared; 

b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controls overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures 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 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial 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 financialreporting 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 7, 2010
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 Texland Drilling Program-1981, LTD, (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ( the Report), we, Jerry
N. Namy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and M. E. Chapman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of our knowledge:



| | (1) |  | 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By: |  | /s/    Jerry N. Namy                                 
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|    |  | Jerry N. Namy Chief Executive Officer August 14, 2003
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/    M. E. Chapman                                 
|    |  | M. E. Chapman Chief Financial Officer August 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Institutional Properties 1997 Third Quarter 10-Q and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000352983
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           8,221
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (40,686)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          34,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,546)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,461
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,854
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,666
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,122
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,544
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    12.65<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2016

No. 04-16-00713-CV

TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($2,977.00) IN 

UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-2653-CV

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record in this appeal shows the trial court signed a final judgment of 

forfeiture on October 2, 2015, and Appellant did not timely file any postjudgment motions. 

Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on November 2, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). 

A motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was due not later than November 17, 

2015. See id. R. 26.3. 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on October 5, 2016. Appellant’s notice of appeal 

appears to be untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 

(Tex. 1997) (“[O]nce the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3]

has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.”).

We ORDER Appellant to SHOW CAUSE in writing within twenty-one days of the date 

of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If Appellant fails 

to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# EXHIBIT 32.2

# 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 Iomega Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Barry Zwarenstein, Chief Financial 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, 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.

/s/ Barry Zwarenstein
Barry Zwarenstein
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Iomega Corporation and will be retained by
Iomega Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Manson vs. Robinson.

New Trial. *Should he granted when ver diet in excess of amount claimed, unless excess remitted.*

The verdict for plaintiff being considerably in excess of tlie amount claimed in tbe complaint, a new trial should not bave been denied, except upon condition that plaintiff enter a *remittitur*of tbe excess.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Portage*County.

Summons for money demand of $350 and interest from May 1, 1866. The complaint alleges an indebtedness to that amount on account for logs, lumber, etc. Answer,' a general denial. The jury brought in a verdict for $692.12. Defendant moved the court to set aside the verdict, because: 1st. The case was tried in the absence of the defendant and his witnesses. 2d. The verdict was largely in excess of the amount claimed in the complaint. In support of the motion, defendant’s affidavit was filed to the effect that he had been misled as to the time when the cause would be reached on the calendar, and *340that his ill health had prevented his being prepared for trial. Motion denied, with costs; and from the order denying the same, defendant appealed.

*J, 0.*Baymond, for appellant,

to the point that the verdict should have been set aside, unless the excess was remitted, in which case the order should have stated the fact of such remission, cited *Lester v.*French, 6 Wis., 580; *Dunbar v. Bitile, 7*id., 143; *Pierce v. For they,*14 id., 9. To the point that the affidavit read in support of the motion established a case of excusable neglect, and the court abused discretion in denying the relief asked for, counsel cited *Johnson v. Fldred,*13 Wis., 482; *Butler v. Mitchell,*15 id,, 355; *Stoppelfeldt v. B. B. Co.,*29 id., 688.

*Park &*Jones, for respondent,

insisted that there had been a *remittitur*of the excess made in open court below, and entered on the minutes; that the order overruling motion for new trial was made on condition of remittitur, and no attempt has been made to enter judgment for more than demanded in the complaint : and that defendant’s affidavit showed inexcusable neglect.

Ryan, C. J.

The verdict of the jury was considerably in excess of the amount claimed in the complaint. Something is said in the briefs of counsel on the subject of a remittitur, but there is none in the record, to which alone we can look. The motion for a tiew trial, if denied, should have been denied only upon condition that the respondent enter a *remittitur*of the excess.

The other grounds set up by the appellant for a new trial went to the discretion of the court below ; and there does not appear to have been an abuse of a sound discretion in the denial of the motion, so far as it rested on those grounds.

But the order of the court below overruling the motion, without making it a condition of the order that the respondent should remit the excess of damages found by the jury, was * erroneous, and must be reversed.

*By the Court,*— Order reversed.
# C_2015316EN.01000101.xml

| 24.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 316/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.7419 — Teliasonera/Telenor/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 316/01)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 27 February 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between Teliasonera AB and Telenor ASA. On 11 September 2015, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

---
Exhibit24.4

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALLMEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes andappoints each of Robert K. Kretzman and Michael T. Sheehan or any ofthem, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact andagent, with full power of substitution, for him and his name, place andstead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the REVLONCONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the"Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Form10-K") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation oron behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of theCorporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument,contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibitsthereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including thispower of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and anyapplicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body,granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thingrequisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fullyto all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents,each acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do orcause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has signed these presents this 1st day of March,2006.

|  | /s/ EDWARD J.LANDAU                             EDWARD J. LANDAU |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
MEMO ROUTING SLIP 

3 

.. 

REF ID:A42848 ---- --~··,.,. 

NEYER USE. FOR. APPlf.WALS, ~lsAf PROYALS, 

CONCUUENCES, OR SIMILAR ilf'l'IONS 

Nan! ANlil 

REl'URll 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 
- - ~-- --._._ 

i .. _.MEMO ROUTING . 

' 

~· •, . . . . . . . 

·a. 

.. ,_, -~_.r· 

REF ID:A42848 ...... :· 

FILI 

llOl'E AND 

llElllJlll. . 

8111 

.Sl&MTURI 

~- -~"'- ~ ·, 

/U~.~ .··~· ~ 

-~~.:l.;._1t~ z:::c····-· '· / .j -Lii"~~ ~a,, (l "' rf 

. bOll llAJIE OR mu 

DD FGa 95 ~DAAOO Form118S.1AprtB;UiclUJlQ I fEHO J'arm U.10 Nov a. wllfalu11qlin11id.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Consolidated Capital Institutional Properties;

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 such 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 respects 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 registrant's 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 registrant's 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: November 13, 2007

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

Vice President of ConCap Equities, Inc., equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership
IN REPLY 

RIEFER TO 

0 

311.55 (Miso. Div.) 

SRS*MIW 

REF ID:A4148903 

0 

WAR DEPARTMENT 

THE? ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE 

WASHINGTON Jul7 26. 1919. 

, Mr. George Fabyan, 

Riverb&llk, GeneTa, Ill. 

I 

I 

Dear Sir: 

The Department begs to express its thanks for the 

information contained in your letters ot May 5, June 16 and Jul7 

5, concerning the American Telephone and Telegraph Comp~ oipher. 

Though the Department is pleased to reoeive information from citizens, it is not its poliay to d.1.sousa with &121'0D8 

who.se aota ~re not oontrolled by the War Department the details 

of its searet oodes and ciphers whether in ourrent or past use. 

However, in order that you may no longer feel the 

responsibility expressed in your letters, tl:le Department considers 

itself justified in informing you, that the need far the .American 

Telephone and Telegraph o ipher machine passed attar the armistice 

of November, 1918, and its use was d.1.scont1:amed and machiDes were 

stored. 

Thia Department is informed that the reoammeD.dationa 

for the changes in this oipher, it need tor its use arises, will 

largely depend upon how widely the details ot the oipher maohine 

and its alphabets have been circulated. 

, Very truly yours, · 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-19-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352~