alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2010

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

York Omar Wilson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: November 29, 2016

 Filed: December 1, 2016 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

York Wilson appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release

1

and imposing a 24-month sentence. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the alleged

violation was not established by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the district

court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Wilson

violated his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke

supervised release if it finds by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated

conditions ofsupervised release); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1109 (8th

Cir. 2008) (fact-finding as to whether violation occurred is reviewed for clear error);

United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (credibility

determinations are exclusive domain of the sentencing judge, and are virtually

unreviewable on appeal). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing Wilson, asit imposed the sentence after properly considering

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th

Cir. 2009) (under substantive-reasonableness test, district court abuses its discretion

if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper

or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United

States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantive reasonableness of

revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Consolidated CapitalInstitutional Properties, LP (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chiefexecutive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalentof the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
#### Beach vs. Sumner and others.

*Jurisdiction of circuit court m foreclosure of mortgage on real estate.*

Under sec. l,ch. 243, Laws of1862,the circuit court for any county cannot cijuire jurisdiction of an action commenced therein for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real estate, unless the mortgaged premises aresituated wholly or partly in such county.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Winnebago*County.

This action was commenced in the Winnebago circuit court, to foreclose a mortgage on real estate in Waupaca county. There was no appearance by any of the defendants. Judgment was rendered in the usual form, which recites, *inter*alia, due proof of personal service of the summons and complaint upon all the defendants. The defendants appealed.

*Sessions & Beed,*for appellants.

*Whittemore &*Weisbrod, for respondent,

contended that prior to the act of 1862, the circuit court of one county had jurisdiction of actions to foreclose mortgages on lands 'in other counties *{Pereles v.*Albert, 12 Wis., 666); that it could not be ousted of this jurisdiction except by express words or necessary implication (Sedgw. on Stat. & Con. Law, 813 ; sec. 8, art. vii of constitution); that ch. 243, Laws of 1862, while it declares that all foreclosure actions shall be commenced, tried and determined in the county where &c., contains no negative words; that there was no hardship to be remedied by it *{Pare-**275*les v. Albert,*supra) ; and that it should therefore be deemed merely directory. Sedgw., 868-78; *Bex v. Inhabitants of Birmingham,*8 B. & C., 29, 35. 2. The objection cannot be raised for the first time on this appeal. *Mariner v. Oroclcer,*18 Wis., 251; *Wilson v. Mayor So.,*4 E. D. Smith, 684; 1 Abb., 4; 34 Barb., 66 ; 8 Abb., 429 ; 3 Kern., 343.

Cole, J.

Section one, chapter 243, Laws of 1862, provides that all actions thereafter commenced in any court of this state, for the foreclosure or satisfaction of a mortgage upon real estate, shall be commenced, tried and determined in the county where the mortgaged premises, or some part thereof, are situated. This language is to clear and precise to admit of any doubt as to the intention of the legislature. That intention indubitably was, to prohibit the bringing of an action to foreclose a mortgage in any county other than the one where the mortgaged property, or some portion of it, was situated. The law was passed to do away with the effect of the decision in *Pereles v. Albert,*12 Wis., 666. It. is claimed that this is a directory statute, and was not intended to deprive the circuit courts of jurisdiction of actions to foreclose mortgages on lands situated in counties other than the one in which the suit is brought. But the law is not susceptible of any such construction.

*By the Court.■*— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the caused remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VITECH
AMERICA, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               1,024,420
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       58,772,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4,057,077
<INVENTORY>                                         28,678,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    93,955,121
<PP&E>                                              24,113,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3,164,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     148,438,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               48,021,435
<BONDS>                                             46,691,710
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                            72,385,718
<OTHER-SE>                                        (18,660,686)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       148,438,177
<SALES>                                            100,423,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   100,423,084
<CGS>                                               59,655,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       88,152,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17,127,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (21,147,093)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (44,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (21,103,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (21,103,093)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (1.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (1.42)


</TABLE>
#### Camp and another, *Administrators of Clark, against*Root.

where the ScüoT of re-court^ofc p! entered into a written agreement to refer the cause to B. to be oniegafprinch EpoSrfthTM?¿ that the*cause if tobe heard and determined by him, and that^hejeport and B, made a wfich’the ¡^mediately *menti"j^e)d*that this not being a case referable un-derthestatute, but a volunta-to the arbitra-meat of B. it wasadisconti- . _ , . , nuance of the suit, and the Qourt having no jurisdiction, the judgment on the award or report was erroneous»

IN ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of *Oneida.*County.; Root brought an action of *Replevin*against *Camp*and Clar/r,. administrators, &c. in which the defendants. avowed a taking for rent, &c. The plaintiffs pleaded in *.*‘ 1 r bar to the avo\fries 5 to which pleas there was a demurrer . . . . , . . , _ . joinder. The parties, by. their attorneys, entered into a written agreement, or rule,by, consent, referring this and two other actions to *Ezekiel Bacon,*to be determined on legal principles 5 .and a rule was accordingly entered in the court below, as follows : “It is ordered that this cause be referred to *Ezekiel Bdcon,*Esq. by.him to be heard, examined, and 7 A ' determined, and that he report to this court.5’ The rete-ree afterwards, on the 14th *October,*1818, made areportin writing, as follows, to wit: “ Upon hearing the parties to the submission, by themselves and their counsel, and after fall consideration of their respective pleas and allegations, r *—“ J*do, therefore, award and determine that * *p 7*tjle plaintiff recover for the illegal taking, &c. six cents * . *°*° damages.” *Root,*by his attorney, moved that the report be confirmed, and for judgment thereon, for the damages *23reported and the costs of suit; and the Court below thereupon gave judgment accordingly, for the damages, and 48 dollars and 30 cents, costs.

*Sill*for the plaintiffs in error.

N. *Williams,*contra.

*Per*Curiam.

This is plainly a case of submission to arbitration ; it is, in no respect, a reference under the statute. The parties chose to enter their submission upon the minutes of the Court, and to direct the arbitrator to make report to the Court; but all this does not vary the rights of the parties, nor authorize the Court to give judgment immediately on the award.

The submission to arbitration was a discontinuance of the suit.

In the case of *Yates*v. *Russell,*in the Court of Errors, (a) it was expressly stipulated by the attorney for the defendant, that if the referees reported against him, judgment should be entered against him for the sum so reported. And that was considered equivalent to a plea of confession for that amount. But in this case there is no such stipulation. We are, therefore, of opinion, that Mr. Bacon’s report is to be regarded as an *award merely;*and that the judgment thus *summarily*entered upon it was *erroneous.*

judgment of reversal.

(a)

*Vide*17 *Johns. Rep.*461.
Order entered December 2, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01310-CV

VERSACOM, LLC, Appellant

V.

NETICOM, LLC, LOC W. TRAN, TUAN A. NGO, AND HOAN BUI, Appellees

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-02676-2013

ORDER

Before the Court is Court Reporter Susan Maienschein’s request for an extension of time 

to file the reporter’s record. Ms. Maienschein’s request is GRANTED. The reporter’s record 

shall be filed by December 30, 2016. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
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 Quarterly Report of Hudson's Grill International, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David L. Osborn, the President of
Hudson's Grill International, Inc., certify that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| | (Registrant)

HUDSON'S GRILL INTERNATIONAL,
INC.

By: s/s David L. Osborn

David L. Osborn, President

Date: May 12, 2005
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

f\sec\o01.050512
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Danny Barforough v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and U.S. Bank 

National Association

Appellate case number: 01-16-00266-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-08217

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

On August 16, 2016, we abated this case for the trial court to render a final judgment by 

ruling on appellees’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2 (permitting 

abatement for trial court to render final judgment). On November 28, 2016, the district clerk filed 

a supplemental clerk’s record containing an order by the trial court granting appellee’s request for 

attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket. 

The parties have already filed briefs and the appellate record has been filed in this Court. 

The case will be set for submission at the earliest practicable time. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebecca Huddle

Acting individually 

Date: January 12, 2017
# C_2016165EN.01000301.xml

| 10.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/3

---

Taking of the oath by new Members of the Civil Service Tribunal

(2016/C 165/03)

Following their appointment as Judges at the Civil Service Tribunal for the period from 1 April 2016 by decision of the Council of 22 March 2016 (1), Mr Sant’Anna and Mr Kornezov took the oath before the Court of Justice on 13 April 2016.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 79, 30.3.2016, p. 30.

1

---
# C_2016061EN.01002301.xml

| 17.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/23

---

Results of the call for proposals — EIB Institute’s EIBURS sponsorship

(2016/C 61/08)

The EIB-University Research Sponsorship Programme (EIBURS) is part of the EIB Institute’s Knowledge Programme, through which the EIB fosters relationships with universities. EIBURS provides grants of up to EUR 100 000 per year for a period of three years to research centres working on topics of major interest to the EIB Group. The grants are awarded through a competitive process to interested university departments or research institutes in the EU, candidate countries or potential candidate countries, with recognised expertise in areas of direct interest to the EIB Group. The grants seek to enable the chosen centres to expand their activities in these areas.

For the period 2015-2018, the EIBURS programme selected one new line of research:

| — | How can larger organisations also be innovative organisations? |
| --- | --- |

—

How can larger organisations also be innovative organisations?

The call for proposals was published in OJ C 233 of 17 July 2015 and the EIB Institute received 27 proposals by the deadline of 30 September 2015. The following table indicates the distribution of the proposals by country:

| EIBURS 2015 | TOTAL |
| --- | --- |
| BE | 1 |
| BG | 4 |
| DE | 1 |
| DK | 2 |
| ES | 1 |
| FI | 1 |
| FR | 2 |
| IT | 4 |
| LT | 3 |
| LU | 1 |
| NL | 1 |
| RO | 1 |
| RS | 1 |
| SI | 2 |
| SK | 1 |
| TR | 1 |
| Total | 27 |

EIBURS 2015

TOTAL

BE

1

BG

4

DE

1

DK

2

ES

1

FI

1

FR

2

IT

4

LT

3

LU

1

NL

1

RO

1

RS

1

SI

2

SK

1

TR

1

Total

Total

27

27

The Knowledge Committee decided, on 13 January 2016, to award the EIBURS grant on ‘How can larger organisations also be innovative organisations?’ to the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna (Italy).

The description of the EIBURS sponsorship project will be published on the Knowledge Programme page of the EIB Institute’s website once the contract with the university has been signed.

All applicants have been directly informed of these results.

The next round of EIBURS is expected to be launched in the coming months. The themes to be proposed will be announced at the launch.

For more extensive information on EIBURS and on the other Knowledge Programme initiatives, please visit the Knowledge Programme page of the EIB Institute’s website.

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

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Hudson's Grill International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, David Roff, 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, that:

1.    the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


     Dated: May 05, 2010


     /s/ "David Roff"


     David Roff
     Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report")
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Jiri Nor, the Chief Executive Officer and Anthony Durkacz, the Vice President,
Finance of Astris Energi Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

      2.    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of Astris Energi Inc.

                                       ASTRIS ENERGI INC.


                                       By: /s/ Jiri K. Nor
                                           ---------------
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           Date: September 28, 2005


                                       ASTRIS ENERGI INC.


                                       By: /s/ Anthony Durkacz
                                           ---------------
                                       Vice  President, Finance
                                       Date: September 28, 2005
# C_2015241EN.01000401.xml

| 23.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/4

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2015/C 241/03)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Slovakia

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : The 200th anniversary of the birth of Ľudovít Štúr

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design depicts a portrait of Ľudovít Štúr. Inscribed to the right of the portrait, parallel to the edge of the inner part of the coin, are the year of issuance ‘2015’ and, further right along the edge, the name of issuing country ‘SLOVENSKO’. Inscribed to the left of the portrait, parallel to the inner edge, are the dates of Štúr’s birth and death ‘1815–1856’ and, further left along the edge, the name ‘ĽUDOVÍT ŠTÚR’. In the upper right part of the design is the mint mark of the Kremnica Mint (Mincovňa Kremnica), consisting of the initials ‘MK’ placed between two dies. In the lower right part are the stylised letters ‘IŘ’, the initials of the designer, Ivan Řehák.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : October 2015

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---