alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth, Appellant, *v.*Gaiser.

*414Argued March 31, 1953.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearns, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*Randolph C. Ryder,*Deputy Attorney General, with him *Robert B. Greer, Jr.,*and *Robert E. Woodside,*Attorney General, for appellant.

No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.

April 22, 1953:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne,

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the court of common pleas setting aside a suspension by the Secretary of Revenue of an operator’s license for operating a motor vehicle. The offense charged was speed on a public highway at sixty-five miles per hour where the maximum lawful speed limit was fifty miles per hour.

*415What we said in *Commonwealth v. Emerick,*373 Pa. 388, 96 A. 2d 370, relating to the construction and legal principle of The Vehicle Code, has similar application to the facts in the present case.

Frederick C. Gaiser, Jr., defendant, was charged by a state policeman with traveling on a public highway on February 19, 1952, at 7:30 p.m., at sixty-five miles per hour when the lawful maximum speed is fifty miles per hour. He was then single but is now married. He is employed as assistant manager of a gasoline station on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Defendant admits the charge. He makes no excuse and testifies to no mitigating circumstances. He has been involved in one accident and was arrested once for speeding. Defendant claims that if his license is suspended it will be difficult to reach his place of employment.

The learned court below revoked the Secretary of Revenue’s order of suspension solely upon the ground of economic hardship. In the order the court said: “. . . it appearing to the Court that the petitioner’s violation did not endanger the life or property of any person, and was the first speeding violation charged, against the petitioner; and it further appearing to the Court that the petitioner is the Assistant Manager of a service station on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and must travel approximately 48 miles per day to and from his work, and that said employment is the sole source of income for the petitioner, his wife and child, and that to deprive him of his license would result in a great and undue hardship . . . the Order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending the license of Frederick C. Gaiser, Jr. is hereby set aside . . .”.

Such an order in the circumstances of this casé constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion.

The order is reversed at the cost of the appellee. .
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00456

- CV

In the Matter of M.F.M.

On Appeal from the 484th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2023

- DJV

- 00365

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

a ppeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. No c osts are assessed due to appellant ’ s inability to pay costs.
We further order this decision certified below fo r observance.
Fe bruary 8 , 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 84 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 76
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 84

                          [Report No. 104-54]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                             April 18, 1995

    Reported, under authority of the order of the Senate of April 6 
  (legislative day, April 5), 1995, by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106 through 12108 of title 46, United 
States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 
App. 883), the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER, 
hull identification number 3121125, and State of Hawaii registration 
number HA1809E.
                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 76

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 84

                          [Report No. 104-54]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 18, 1995

                       Reported without amendment
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 2000
FIRST QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,244
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          15,809
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   732
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    444,277
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,857
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,853
<LOANS>                                        363,640
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,858
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 880,318
<DEPOSITS>                                     504,038
<SHORT-TERM>                                   104,018
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,512
<LONG-TERM>                                    182,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 880,318
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,688
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,902
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,590
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,827
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,862
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,728
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 106
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,128
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,128
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,618
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.21
<LOANS-NON>                                        848
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,731
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       60
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,858
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,858
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-18-1997
<CASH>                                           7,840
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    178,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               223,946
<PP&E>                                         631,777
<DEPRECIATION>                                 339,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 722,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          201,168
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           61,396
<PREFERRED>                                      8,888
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                   (165,484)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   722,304
<SALES>                                        376,715
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               376,715
<CGS>                                          280,655
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  367,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,742
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,822)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,418)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,404)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (870)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,274)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (12.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (12.56)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Hira Azhar v. Mohammed Ali Choudhri

Appellate case number: 01-20-00169-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-36895

Trial court: 312th District Court of Harris County

Appellee, Ali Choudhri, acting pro se, filed a motion for extension of time to file 

his appellee’s brief. After extensions granted by this Court, appellant, Hira Azhar filed her 

appellant’s brief on July 21, 2021. Accordingly, Choudhri’s brief was due to be filed on 

or before August 20, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

In his motion for extension of time, Choudhri requests a sixty-day extension to file 

his appellee’s brief. Choudhri’s motion represents to the Court that the extension is 

necessary because he “needs additional time to find counsel as he did not believe [Azhar] 

was actually filing a brief and continuing with the appeal until very recently.” Choudhri’s 

motion includes a certificate of conference representing that appellant is not opposed to the 

requested extension of time to file an appellee’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 

10.3(a).

Choudhri’s motion for extension of time to file an appellee’s brief is granted. 

Choudhri’s deadline to file his appellee’s brief is extended by a period of sixty-days 

and must be filed on or before October 19, 2021. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Amparo Guerra_______

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___August 24, 2021___
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Perfecto Acevedo SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30075

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Terence Michael Ryan, Attorney, Terence Ryan Law Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Perfecto Acevedo Sanchez appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying him a further sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Sanchez’s sentence from 210 to 189 months. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); *United States v. Dunn,*728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, contrary to Sanchez’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered his arguments for a greater sentence reduction and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. *See United States v. Trujillo,*713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kendrick DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7700

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Kendrick Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kendrick Davis pled guilty to distribution of Fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012), and was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the judgment. United States v. Davis, 663 Fed. Appx. 256 (4th Cir. 2016). Davis filed a second notice of appeal of the criminal judgment. Because we have previously af*288firmed this criminal judgment, we dismiss the appeal as duplicative and untimely. 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.

DISMISSED
| 1.     | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of JBI Inc. |

|                 |   |                     |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
| Date: April 20, 2011 | By:    | /s/ John Bordynuik       |   |
|                 |   | John Bordynuik           |   |
|                 |   | President, CEO, Director |   |
S. Con. Res. 19 Agreed to June 30, 1995

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concur- ring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 483) to amend

title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit medicare select

policies to be offered in all States, and for other purposes, the

Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the following

correction: Amend the title so as to read as follows: ‘‘An Act to

amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 to permit

medicare select policies to be offered in all States.’’.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo ROMERO-MESA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10474 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 10, 2017)

Karin Bethany Hoppmann, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, James A. Muench, Amanda Lynn Riedel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Victor D. Martinez, appointed counsel for Ricardo Romero-Mesa in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Romero-Mesa’s conviction and sentence are 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 Quarterly Report of FFD Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Trent
B. Troyer, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Trent B. Troyer
-------------------------------------
Trent B. Troyer
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 17, 2004
#### Windsor & Cathcart v. Cobb *et al.*

Appeal: review of former opinion : stare decisis. The correctness of an opinion filed by this court may be reviewed upon a petition for rehearing, but not on a second appeal in the same case.

*Appeal from Taylor District Court.*— IIon. J. W. Harvey, Judge.

Filed, September 5, 1888.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*O. B. Haddock,*for appellants.

*J. L. Brown*and *Chas.*Thomas, for appellees.

*710Seevers, C. J.

This case was before the court at a former term, and the opinion will be found in 72 Iowa, 692. In supposed obedience to such opinion, the district court caused to be entered a decree; no additional evidence having been offered by either party. The defendants appeal, and insist that the court below misconstrued the opinion of this court. They maintain that the words, “if all the mortgages are paid,” mean and include the Lombard mortgages only, but we are unable to see how the language used can be thus limited. ‘£ All the mortgages” ■ must mean all mortgages mentioned in the opinion and which were material to the adjustment of the whole matter in controversy. Counsel insist that if the opinion of this court is thus construed, it is wrong, and the defendant Evans greatly damaged thereby. Into this field of discussion we cannot enter. The argument ' of counsel, if made in support of a petition for rehearing, would have been entitled to, and would have received, consideration. But the former decision constitutes the law of this case, and cannot be reviewed except as provided by law. The decree of the district court being in conformity with the opinion of this court, it must be Affirmed.
# L_2004360EN.01003301.xml

| 7.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 360/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 360/33

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 31 December 2003
  )

On page 3, Article 1(4):

for:

‘... following second paragraph ...’

read:

‘... following second subparagraph ...’;

on page 78 in Annex IV, Annex 37, Title I, B, column ‘G’, box 2 in the form:

for:

‘A’

read:

‘B’;

on page 83, under Title II, heading
  ‘Box 2’
  , second paragraph:

‘Box 2’

for:

‘... in Article 206, third paragraph.’,

read:

‘... in Article 206, third subparagraph.’;

on page 96 in Annex 38, heading
  ‘Box 1: Declaration’
  , first and third subdivisions:

‘Box 1: Declaration’

the colon after the codes shall be deleted;

on page 98, Box 14(a):

the full stop after the codes shall be deleted;

on page 99, Box 20: last three lines concerning the third subdivision:

the colon after the codes shall be deleted;

on page 100, Box 24:

the full stops after the codes shall be deleted;

on pages 108, 109 and 110, Box 37, codes 07, 45 and 49:

the last paragraph is a second example and should be printed in the same way as the first example;

on page 109, Box 37, example in code 31:

for:

‘... export.’,

read:

‘... re-export.’;

on page 118, Box 47, under the subheading ‘
  Last column: Method of payment
  ’:

Last column: Method of payment

the colon after the codes shall be deleted.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-40215 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 27, 2017

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

Eric Davila, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eric Davila 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). Davila 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 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for *386leave 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.