alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio GUERRA-SALINAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41186 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Antonio Guerra-Salinas, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Antonio Guerra-Salinas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guerra-Salinas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous *267issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Efren Enrique Cintron FOOSSE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3209

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of appellant to comply with this court's order of April 10, 2018, requiring the filing of an initial brief.

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          36,894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,440
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 597,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          172,339
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,829
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   597,868
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,256
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20,256)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-11728) pertaining to
the Employees Stock Options Plan, Founders Warrants and other Warrants of Wavecom S.A., of our report dated February 10, 2003, except for Note 15 for which the date is April 4,
2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Wavecom, included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2002, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

ERNST &
YOUNG Audit

Represented
by John Mackey

Paris,
France
May 21, 2003

---

QuickLinks
January 29, 2010

Subject: Teleconference with Portland Cement Association to discuss HCl emissions data 

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

Date: January 27, 2010

Participants:

Portland Cement Association (PCA)

Andy O’Hare, PCA

Hector Ybanez, Holcim

Curtis Leslie, Ash Grove

Mike Pelan, Lafarge

Dan Nugent, Buzzi

Tim Matz, Lehigh

Bob Gunn, National Cement

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Keith Barnett

Elineth

RTI International

Mike Laney

EPA explained that because of insufficient data, they are considering issuing a 114 request to 

selected Portland cement plants to conduct additional HCl testing using method 321. Data are 

needed for 10 – 20 kilns. EPA would probably issue the request the week of February 1st. The 

industry expressed concerns due to the time and cost involved in additional testing as well as the 

fact that some of the kilns targeted were not operating.

The use of data below the detection limit was discussed as well as the distinction between a 

detection limit and the practical quantification limit.

The problem of testing on monovent baghouses was raised by PCA. EPA stated that where 

testing would be difficult, the company could test at a different kiln or plant.

PCA members will meet to discuss EPA’s HCl data needs and get back to EPA.
#### Raymond I. PETERSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20142.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 22, 1966.

Decided Oct. 3, 1966.

Raymond I. Peterson filed a brief pro se and his case was treated as submitted thereon.

Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., was on the brief, submitted on the brief for appellee.

Before Burger, McGowan and Leven-'THAL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant in January of 1964 was indicted for five separate crimes in connection with a bank robbery. Court-appointed counsel withdrew after appellant had indicated a lack of confidence in him, and had expressed a desire to retain his own counsel. The first such retained counsel suffered a similar fate, and was replaced. While served by the second retained counsel, appellant pleaded guilty to one count of the indictment (robbery), and the remaining four were dismissed.

After sentence was imposed, appellant wrote a letter to the sentencing court, admitting the robbery but asking a reduction in the term of the sentence. This was denied. Somewhat more than a year later, appellant filed a pro *se*motion for vacating of sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that his guilty plea had been coerced by his retained counsel. The District Court appointed counsel for appellant and ordered a hearing held. At that hearing, appellant’s retained counsel at the time of the plea was the only witness. He testified at length about the circumstances surrounding his recommendation of a plea of guilty. We do not stop to detail that testimony other than to say that it amply supported the District Court’s finding that appellant’s plea had been voluntarily and understandingly entered.

The District Court’s handling of this § 2255 motion is as unexceptionable procedurally as it is unassailable substantively. Its judgment will be

Affirmed.
**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 Central Freight Lines, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
      V. Fasso, 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 to my knowledge:





(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/
      Robert V. Fasso


Robert
      V.
      Fasso


Chief
      Executive Officer


May
      1,
      2006
[Civ. No. 2635.

Second Appellate District, Division One.

November 7, 1919.]

#### P. A. PARKER, Appellant, v. MERCHANTS & INSURERS REPORTING COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent.

[1] Account Stated—Order op Corporation That Amount be Paid —Insufficient Evidence.—The minutes of the board of directors of a corporation containing an order that commissions due a certain person to a given amount be paid do not constitute sufficient evidence of an account stated between the corporation and said person, there being no evidence of any demand being made at that time by said person for the specified sum or any sum whatever, or any evidence that she ever assented to said order or to the amount therein specified, or even that she knew that such order had been made.

1. What constitutes an account stated, note, 27 I». R. A. 811.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Chas. Wellborn, Judge.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Henry W. Nisbet for Appellant.

Slosson & Mitchell for Respondent.

CONREY, P. J.

Upon the trial of this action the plaintiff rested her case solely upon the second cause of action stated in the complaint, which was upon an account stated. Upon the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which motion was granted, and accordingly judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. From that judgment the plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff introduced in evidence minutes of the board of directors of defendant corporation, showing that upon motion it was ordered “that commissions due P. A. Parker to the amount of $3,990.44 be paid.” There is no evidence of any demand being made at that time by the plaintiff for the specified sum of money or any sum whatever. Neither is there any evidence that she ever assented to said order *215or to the amount therein specified, or even that she knew that such order had been made. It necessarily follows that no agreement was made between the parties whereby the amount of plaintiff’s demand was limited or ascertained and determined. *(Gille*v. *Anderson,*34 Cal. App. 237, [167 Pac. 193]; *Gardner*v. *Watson,*170 Cal. 571, [150 Pac. 994].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Shaw, J., and James, J., concurred.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

WELLSPAN MEDICAL GROUP,

Respondent

v.

BRIAN MICHAEL, M.D.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 77 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of August, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### SHANNON *v.*GULL LAKE ASSOCIATION.

Specific Performance — Land Contract — Discretion of Court.

Specific performance of a land contract is not a remedy of right but rests in the sound discretion of the court; where a review of the record fails to convince the appellate court that it would have reached a different result had it sat as a trial court, a finding of the trial court that plaintiff vendee is not entitled to specific performance of the contract because of his failure to meet his contractual obligations under the contract is affirmed.

Reference for Points in Headnote

49 Am Jur, Specific Performance § § 8, 9.

*645Appeal from Kalamazoo, Sweet (Lucien F.), J.

Submitted Division 3 April 3, 1968, at Grand Rapids.

(Docket No. 3,482.)

Decided June 10, 1968.

Complaint by Robert E. Shannon against the Gull Lake Association for specific performance of contract to sell land. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Golden '<& Golden,*for plaintiff.

*Howard & Howard (Frederick A. Lake,*of counsel), for defendant.

Per Curiam.,

Plaintiff, appeals a judgment of no cause of action for specific performance of an agreement to sell real estate. Two contracts are involved, the first dated July 21, 1961, and the second February 12, 1963. The trial court found that the second contract superseded the first contract, and that plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the second contract because of his failure to meet his, contractual obligations , thereunder. A review of the record fails to convince us we would have reached a different result had we sat as the trial court.

Specific performance is not a remedy of right but rests in the sound discretion of the court. *Rose*v. *Gilbert*(1948), 320 Mich 455. This record demonstrates no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed, with costs to defendant.

Burns, P. J., and Quinn and Ziem, JJ., concurred.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Herbert G. Wolf and Far East International Corp., Defendants, Philipp Bauer Co., Inc., and Kenneth B. Bauer, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 152, Docket 30512.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 6, 1966.

Decided Oct. 28, 1966.

See also D.C., 36 F.R.D. 18.

Richard A. Givens, New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern Dist. of New York, and Paul R. Grand, Michael W. Mitchell, Asst. U. S. Attys., on the brief), for appellee.

Edward S. Friedland, New York City, for appellants, Philipp Bauer Co., Inc., and Kenneth B. Bauer.

Before SMITH, HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were convicted by verdict of a jury of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 which provides:

> “Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully * * * conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations * * * shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

*526The evidence shows that in connection with the distribution by appellants of pharmaceutical products in Vietnam and Cambodia, appellants received and made certain payments which they failed to disclose in answer to questions concerning such payments on forms provided by the Agency for International Development and filed by appellants in order to obtain payment for the products from foreign aid funds. Appellants contend that they were not required to disclose payments of the type which they admittedly received and made and that, therefore, their failure to do so does not constitute a violation of Section 1001.

The AID forms called for “information as to agents’ commissions, domestic and foreign * * * paid or to be paid,” to which appellants replied “None,” and contained the following statement which was signed by appellants without entering anything on the reverse of the form:

> “The supplier has not given or received and will not give or receive by way of side payment, ‘kickbacks,’ or otherwise, any benefit in connection with said contract except as is disclosed on the reverse of this form.”

Appellants paid 10% of invoice prices to importers of the pharmaceutical products for what they called “promotion allowances.” Besides these regular payments appellants also paid from time to time various personal expenses of the importers including, for example, airplane tickets, hospital expenses, and transportation of an automobile.

Appellants also made regular payments of 2% of invoice price to one of the officials of its supplier.

Moreover, appellants received a 20% commission for acting as agent for their supplier.

It is obvious that appellants gave and received “benefits” some of which are also properly to be classified as “commissions,” “side payments” and “kickbacks.” Their failure to disclose these payments on the AID form clearly constituted a violation of Section 1001.

Affirmed.
#### Bertrand H. Snell et al., Respondents, *v.*City of Long Beach, Appellant.

Argued January 21, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*651
      *Bernard H. Reich, Corporation Counsel (Irving G. Hubbs*of counsel), for appellant.

*Kenneth M. Spence*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.02**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Lewis R. Belote, III, certify that:
          1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Homestore,Inc.;
          2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
          3. [paragraph intentionally omitted];
          4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986]
     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
          5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   Date: April 29, 2004      /S/ LEWIS R. BELOTE, III   Lewis R. Belote, III
E.T.F. v. STATE

CR-15-1511

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### People ex rel. 270 Park Avenue Corporation et al., Respondents, against James J. Sexton et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants.

Submitted April 5, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*Herbert C. Smyth, Jr.,*for motion.

*Thomas D. Thacher, Corporation Counsel (Arthur H. Goldberg*of counsel), opposed.

Motion denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------

         Each of the undersigned officers and/or directors of Too, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby appoints Michael W. Rayden and Kent
A. Kleeberger as his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, or either of them
individually with power to act without the other, as his or her true and lawful
attorney-in-fact, in his or her name and on his or her behalf, and in any and
all capacities stated below, to sign and to cause to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended February 2, 2002, and any and all amendments thereto,
hereby granting unto said attorneys, and to each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any
and all such capacities, every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in
and about the premises as fully as each of the undersigned could or might do in
person, hereby granting to each such attorney full power of substitution and
revocation, and hereby ratifying all that any such attorney or his substitute
may do by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of
Attorney in counterparts if necessary, effective as of April 3, 2002.

                  Signature                             Title

         /s/ Michael W. Rayden            President, Chief Executive Officer,
---------------------------------------   and Chairman of the Board of Directors
         Michael W. Rayden                (Principal Executive Officer)


         /s/ Kent A. Kleeberger           Executive Vice President-Chief
---------------------------------------   Financial Officer, Logistics and
         Kent A. Kleeberger               Systems, Secretary, Treasurer,
                                          and Director (Principal Accounting
                                          Officer and Principal Financial
                                          Officer)

         /s/ Nancy J. Kramer
---------------------------------------   Director
         Nancy J. Kramer

         /s/ David A. Krinsky
---------------------------------------   Director
         David A. Krinsky

         /s/ Philip E. Mallott
---------------------------------------   Director
         Philip E. Mallott


---------------------------------------   Director
         James U. McNeal

         /s/ Kenneth J. Strottman
---------------------------------------   Director
         Kenneth J. Strottman
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Larry M. Rinehart is the President, ChiefExecutive Officer and Director of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with thefiling by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

- the Report fully complies with the requirements of          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934          (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations          of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the          Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit tothe Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as theReport is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

| February 11, 2003 
/s/ Larry M. Rinehart
Dated 
Larry M. Rinehart |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|