alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 27 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the remains of the late United States 

3 Capitol Police Officer William F. Evans shall be permitted 

4 to lie in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol on April 13, 

5 2021, and the Architect of the Capitol, under the direction 

6 of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 

7 President pro tempore of the Senate, 
2 

•HCON 27 EH 

1 shall take all necessary steps for the accomplishment of 

2 that purpose. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 8, 2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 27 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Permitting the remains of the late United States 

honor in the rotunda of the Capitol. Capitol Police Officer William F. Evans to lie in
* 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 li mited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40956 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LUIS HUMBERTO LOPEZ-SANCHEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CV-74 USDC No. 5:05-CR-2307-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Luis Humberto Lopez-Sanchez (Lopez) has moved for leave towithdrawand hasfiled a briefin accordancewith Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lopez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 22, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40956

2 GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
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





In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of China Sky One Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu Yan Qing, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President 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 result of operations of the
Company.





Date:  April
15, 2009





By:
                  /s/ Liu Yan-QingName:
      Liu Yan-QingTitle:
      Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive
      Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0473

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

PHILIP BRYSON GRIMSHAW,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 30, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 25 2023

09/25/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0473
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

CHELSEA SCHMALENBERG, ) Case No.: 1:18-CV-99
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE TIMOTHY S. BLACK
)
vs. )
)
DYSPHAGIA MANAGEMENT )
SYSTEMS, LLC, et al., )
) STIPULATED ORDER AND FINAL
Defendants. ) JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (“Joint Motion”) pursuant to §16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §216(b). The Joint Motion asks this Court to
approve, as fair and reasonable, the proposed settlement reached by the parties and memorialized
in the Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement”), filed as Exhibit 1 to the Joint Motion.

Having reviewed the Joint Motion, Settlement, and pleadings and papers on file in this
action, and for good cause established therein, the Court enters this Stipulated Order and Final
Judgment, approving the Settlement as follows:

Ls The captioned Lawsuit asserted wage-and-hour claims under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 201 et seq., and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (*OMFWSA”), on behalf of
Plaintiff Chelsea Schmalenberg. Defendant Dysphagia Management Systems, LLC (“DMS”)
has asserted counterclaims against Plaintiff.

2. The Court finds that the proposed Settlement is fair and reasonable and satisfies

the standard for approval under §16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

S


3. The Court approves the Settlement, and orders that the settlement be implemented
according to the terms and conditions of the Settlement and as directed herein.

4. The Court dismisses the claims of Plaintiff and counterclaims of Defendant DMS
With Prejudice, each party to bear its own costs, and hereby enters final judgment. The Court
finds there is no just reason for delay and directs the Clerk of Courts to enter this Stipulated

Order and Final Judgment immediately.

. afd me
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1“day of Ze) s) , 2019.

nthan, 220K

Honorable ee . Black
US. District Co Ohio

SO STIPULATED:

/s/ Cori R. Besse

Cori R. Besse (0081447)
SADLOWSKI & BESSE, LLC
11427 Reed Hartman Highway
Suite 217

Blue Ash, Ohio 45241

(513) 618-6596

(513) 618-6442 (facsimile)
CBesse@sb-lawyers.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Joel R. Hlavaty

Joel R. Hlavaty (0027005)
FRANTZ WARD LLP
200 Public Square

Suite 3000

Cleveland, Ohio 44114
(216) 515-1660

(216) 515-1650 (facsimile)

jhlavaty@frantzward.com

Attorney for Defendants
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6742

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JONTAVIOUS KYREE LYONS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

No. 22

- 6743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JONTAVIOUS KYREE LYONS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00052

- CCE

- 2 ; 1:18

- cr - 00254

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : November 22, 2022 Decided: November 29, 2022 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6743 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER , Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jontavious Kyree Lyons , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6743 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Jontavious Kyree Lyons appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release

. * We
review a district court ’ s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).
We have reviewed the record an d conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial

. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court ’ s order. United States v. Lyons , Nos. 1:18

- cr - 00052

- CCE

- 2 , 1:18

- cr - 00254

- CCE

- 1 (M.D.N.C. June 14, 2022). 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

* Although Lyons was charged and convicted in two separate criminal cases, the district court issued a single order denying Lyons’ compassionate release motion. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6743 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         546,542                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,078                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               547,620                       0
<PP&E>                                      61,100,449                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                              26,677,474                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,970,595                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          547,620                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,422,975                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,970,595                       0
<SALES>                                      1,696,721               4,390,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,699,597               4,396,790
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,545                 126,975
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,658,052               4,269,815
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,658,052               4,269,815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,658,052               4,269,815
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.276                   0.712
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.276                   0.712


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS 
PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          54,805
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,529
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,369
<PP&E>                                          87,078
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,191
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,979,974
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       155,347
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,971,065)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   164,256
<SALES>                                        392,693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               397,892
<CGS>                                           65,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,794,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,491
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,396,761)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,396,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,396,761)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Kenneth Y.
Tanji, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 14, 2009



/s/ Kenneth Y. TanjiName:

Kenneth Y. TanjiTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01723]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments

ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request 
approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the 
collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA) requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the Federal 
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before 
submission to OMB, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response 
to the notice. This notice complies with that requirement.

DATES: Submit comments on or before March 29, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments to Michael Donadieu, Senior Examiner, 
Office of SBIC Examinations, OII, Small Business Administration 
Washington, DC 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Donadieu, Senior Examiner, 
Office of SBIC Examinations, OII, 202-205-7281, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#274a4e444f46424b0943484946434e42526754454609404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3aeaaa0aba2a6afeda7acada2a7aaa6b683b0a1a2eda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a>, or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-
205-7030, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0c3d5d2d4c9d38ed2c9c3c8e0d3c2c18ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfdccacdcbd6cc91cdd6dcd7ffccddde91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Form 857 is used by SBA examiners to obtain 
information about financing provided by small business investment 
companies (SBICs). This information, which is collected directly from 
the financed small business, provides independent confirmation of 
information reported to SBA by SBICs, as well as additional information 
not reported by SBICs.

OMB Control Number 3245-0109

    Title: ``Request for Information Concerning Portfolio Financing''.
    Description of Respondents: Small Business Investment Companies.
    Form Number: 857.
    Annual Responses: 2,250.
    Annual Burden: 2,250.

Curtis Rich,
Management Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2022-01723 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Hawkins v. Files.

Execution Lien : *Superior to prior unrecorded mortgage.*

The lien on land acquired by the levy of an execution, is superior to that of a prior unrecorded mortgage, although the mortgage is subsequently filed for record before the sale of the land.

APPEAL from *Ashley*Circuit Court in Chancery.

*418Carroll D. Wood, Judge.

On the 3d day of August, 1874, A. W. Files executed to Mildred H. Williams a mortgage on the land in controversy and other property. On the 13th day of April, 1876, J. M. Robinson & Co. recovered a judgment against Files in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, in which said land is situated. Execution was issued on the judgment on the 24th of May, 1876, and was levied on the land in controversy on the 1st day of June, 1876. On the 23d day of June, 1876, Mildred H. Williams, who had neglected to have said mortgage recorded, filed it for record in the proper office and it was duly recorded there on the same day. On the 30th day of June, 1876, the land was sold by the marshal and purchased by Robinson & Co., the plaintiffs in the execution', to whom it was conveyed by the marshal. An assignee of the mortgage brought this suit to foreclose it against Robinson & Co. and against certain persons claiming title to the land in controversy acquired by purchase from Robinson & Co. The court below held that the lien created by'the levy of the execution was superior to that of the mortgage and dismissed the appellant’s bill as against Robinson & Co.’s vendees.

*M. L.*Hawkins, *pro se.*

An unrecorded mortgage is superior to an aftei'-acquired judgment. Jones Mort., [2d ed.] p. 462; see also 16 Ark., 548-9; 28 Id., 85 ; 33 Id., 336.

*J, M.*Moore, for appellee.

The lien of a judgment attaches from its date. 12 Ark., 276, and is superior to a subsequent mortgage. 13 Ark., 547. The levy of the execution created a specific lien, 31 Id., 392, which is superior to that of an after-recorded mort*419gage. 9 Ark., 112; 22 Id., 136; 40 Id., 536; 41 Id., 191-2; Mansf. Dig., sec. 4743, and note.

Per Curiam.

The lien acquired by the levy of an execution upon lands is superior to that of a prior unrecorded mortgage, even though the mortgage be subsequently filed for record before sale. This is in accordance with *Main v.*Alexander, 9 Ark., 112. See annotation to the case cited; also *Dodd v.*Parker, 40 Ark., 536; *Wing v. Ringo,*49 Ib., 457.

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0181. DONALD MORAN v. THE STATE.

In March 2014, Donald Moran was sentenced following his convictions for

aggravated battery, aggravated assault, burglary, possession of a knife during the

commission of a felony, and stalking. On appeal, this Court reversed the stalking

conviction and affirmed the remaining convictions. See Moran v. State, 334 Ga. App.

765 (2015). In January 2016, Moran filed an extraordinary motion for new trial,

which the trial court denied on July 14, 2016. Moran improperly filed a direct appeal

of the denial. See Moran v. State, Case No. A17A0563; see also OCGA § 5-6-35 (a)

(7) (providing that the denial of an extraordinary motion for new trial issubject to the

discretionary appeal procedure). On November 28, 2016, Moran filed the instant

application for discretionary review of the denial. We lack jurisdiction. 

As Moran recognizes, his application is untimely. To be timely, a discretionary

application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed,

but Moran filed his application 137 days after entry of the order denying his

extraordinary motion for new trial. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). While Moran argues

that we should consider his application for several reasons, the requirements of

OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and we cannot accept an application for appeal not

made in compliance therewith. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d

57) (1989). Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED. 

December 12, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/12/2016
#### Donahue *v.*Arkadelphia Milling Company.

Opinion delivered April 22, 1929.

*411*Ben F. Reinbergér*and *J. A. Tellier,*for appellant.

*Barber <& Henry, Troy W. Lewis*and *Clayton Freeman,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellants insist that the court erred in not directing a verdict in their favor, and in directing a verdict against them, and the contention must he sustained. The bond and the obligation sued on is such a one as the statute (§§ 8287 and 8288, C. & M. Digest) applies to, and from liability upon which the sureties or guarantors may be exonerated upon compliance with its terms. *Thompson*v. *Treller,*82 Ark. 247, 101 S. W. 174; *Shores-Mueller Co.*v. *Palmer,*141 Ark. 64, 216 S. W. 295.

The sureties or guarantors had the right, under the statute, which is part of every such contract, to demand, any time after the action accrued on the bond and before the trial of suit brought thereon against them, that suit be brought against the principal and proceeded with to judgment, etc. *Barnett*v. *Alexander,*150 Ark. 478, 234 S. W. 938.

It can make no difference that the principal was made a party to the same action in which they were sued, since the summons had been returned *non est*against him, and the suit could not be proceeded with, before the notice was given, and the fact that they did not plead the notice and demand for exoneration from liability in the suit brought at the first trial constituted *412no waiver of the right to do so, since 30 days had not elapsed between the giving of the notice and the time of the trial. Certainly the plea could properly have been made by amendment on the trial of the cause anew after it had been remanded to the circuit court. Suit could have been brought against the nonresident principal, after the notice had been given, by an attachment upon his property in the State and constructive service had by the publication of a warning order, but this was not attempted to be done. C. & M. Digest, §§ 1159-60; *Boynton v. Chicago Mill*& *Lbr. Co.,*84 Ark. 203, 105 S. W. 77; *Frank*v. *Frank,*175 Ark. 285, 298 S. W. 1026.

The undisputed testimony shows' that the principal in the bond was a nonresident of the State, having property in the State that could be attached at the timé the notice was given by appellant’s demanding that he be sued, and no such suit having been 'brought, as was required should be done under the terms of the statute and notice given, the sureties, appellants here, were exonerated from liability upon the bond, and the court erred in not so directing the jury.

The judgment is accordingly reversed, and- judgment in their favor will be entered here It is so ordered.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000696 30-NOV-2016 08:30 AM