alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MANDATE



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00585

- CV

Dennis D. Shaver, Appellant

v.

Wells F argo Bank, NA as Trustee for NCM T 2008

- 1, Appellee Appealed from the County Court at Law of Waller County. (Tr. Ct. No. C12

- 102). Memorandum o pinion delivered by Justice Christopher. Justices Jamison and McCally also participating.

TO THE COUNTY COURT OF WALLER COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on July 1, 2014 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its order in
these words:

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed March 21, 2013 in favor of appellee Wells F argo Bank, NA as Trustee for NCM T 2008

- 1, w as heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant Dennis D. Shaver to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.
WITNESS , the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost , Chief Justice of our Fou rteenth Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, May 26,
2015

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael ANGLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-3625

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted December 1, 2017

Decided December 4, 2017

Jonathan H. Koenig, Attorney, Kelly B. Watzka, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joseph Aragorn Bugni, Attorney, Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc., Madison, WI, Anderson M. Gansner, Attorney, Federal Defender Services of Eastern Wisconsin, Incorporated, Milwaukee, WI, Daniel W. Stiller, Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellant

Michael Anglin, Pro Se

Before Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, Ann Claire Williams, Circuit Judge, Gary Feinerman, District Judge *

*

 Of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Order

Our opinion in this appeal, *United States v. Anglin,*846 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2017), remanded for additional proceedings concerning the terms of supervised release but otherwise affirmed the convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court then instructed us to consider the effect of *Dean v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1170, 197 L.Ed.2d 490 (2017), which held that a-district court need not disregard the punishment on counts with mandatory-minimum sentences when determining the punishment on other counts. *Anglin v. United States,*No. 16-9411, — U.S. —, 138 S.Ct. 126, 199 L.Ed.2d 1, 2017 WL 2378833 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017). The parties have filed position statements on remand.

After considering these statements, we remand to the district court with instructions to conduct a full resentencing in light of *Dean*and all other current law, including this circuit’s rulings (some of which post-date our original opinion) on the terms of supervised release. Because the district judge who sentenced Anglin has retired, it is not possible to ask him whether this circuit’s opinion in *United States v. Roberson,*474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2007), which *Dean*disapproved, affected Anglin’s sentence. And because at least some terms of Anglin’s sentence must be .determined by a newly assigned judge, the most sensible approach is to allow that judge to craft a complete sentencing package.

Anglin’s convictions remain valid. The sentences are vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 18

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 6, 1997

Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Congratulating the people of the Republic of Nicaragua on

the success of their democratic elections held on October

20, 1996.

Whereas on October 20, 1996, the people of the Republic of

Nicaragua held truly democratic, multiparty elections to

choose their government;

Whereas these elections were deemed by international and domestic observers to be free and fair and a legitimate expression of the will of the people of the Republic of Nicaragua;
2

•HCON 18 RFS

Whereas on January 10, 1997, Arnoldo Aleman was peacefully sworn in to the office of President of the Republic

of Nicaragua and immediately promised to continue down

the path to democracy, national reconciliation and reconstruction that was started by the previous administration

of President Violeta Barrios de Chamorro; and

Whereas this historic event of democratic elections in the Republic of Nicaragua and the inauguration of President

Arnoldo Aleman should be honored: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) congratulates the people of the Republic of

4 Nicaragua for the successful completion of the his5 toric democratic, multiparty elections held on Octo6 ber 20, 1996;

7 (2) congratulates former President Violeta

8 Barrios de Chamorro for her personal courage and

9 her commitment to democracy, which have helped

10 her achieve a profound political and economic transi11 tion in the Republic of Nicaragua;

12 (3) encourages all Nicaraguans to continue to

13 work together after taking this critical step on the

14 long road to lasting peace and democracy;

15 (4) recognizes that all Nicaraguans should con16 tinue to work together in order to ensure a stable

17 democracy, respect for human rights, a free and
3

•HCON 18 RFS

1 market-oriented economy, and social justice for all

2 people;

3 (5) reaffirms the commitment of the United

4 States to help the Republic of Nicaragua move to5 ward freedom and democracy; and

6 (6) further reaffirms that the United States is

7 strongly committed to encouraging democracy and

8 peaceful development throughout the Western Hemi9 sphere.

Passed the House of Representatives March 5,

1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                              CAUTIONARY STATEMENT


         Reality Interactive, Inc. (the "Company"), or persons acting on behalf
of the Company, or outside reviewers retained by the Company making statements
on behalf of the Company, or underwriters, from time to time make, in writing or
orally, "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. When used in conjunction with an identified
forward-looking statement, this Cautionary Statement is for the purpose of
qualifying for the "safe harbor" provisions of such sections and is intended to
be a readily available written document that contains factors which could cause
results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements. These factors
are in addition to any other cautionary statements, written or oral, which may
be made or referred to in connection with any such forward-looking statement.

         The following matter, among others, may have a material adverse effect
on the business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations or
prospects, financial or otherwise, of the Company. Reference to this Cautionary
Statement in the context of a forward-looking statement or statements shall be
deemed to be a statement that may cause actual results to differ materially from
those in such forward-looking statement or statements:

        DISCONTINUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS. The Company ceased its business
operations effective April 30, 1999. Management of the Company believes this
action was necessary in light of the Company's current liquidity needs and lack
of short-term revenue opportunities. The Company is currently exploring
potential uses for the Company in its current form as an inoperative public
company. In the meantime, the Company intends to comply with all SEC filing
requirements in order to maintain the Company's good standing under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In the event the Company is unable
to find a suitable acquisition or merger candidate or other suitable use for the
Company in the near future, the Company will be liquidated and its remaining
assets will be distributed to its creditors in satisfaction of its then-current
obligations and, if any assets remain thereafter, to its shareholders. There can
be no assurance that any such candidate or other suitable use for the Company or
its assets will be found.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor ROMAN, a/k/a Chaparro, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6898

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Victor Roman, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Laura Howard, OFFICE OF THE *204UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,’ North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. ■

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Victor Roman appeals the district court’s marginal order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s previous denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion,*
      *United States v. Roman,*No. 7:05-cr-00097-FL-20 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2015). 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*

While a district court lacks authority to reconsider a ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion, "this prohibition [is] non-jurisdictional, and thus waived when the government fail[s] to assert it below.” *United States*v. *May,*855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017). Here, “[b]ecause the government failed to raise this non-jurisdictional limitation below, it is waived on appeal,” *Id.*at 275,
# Official Journal L 178/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 178 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 491 July 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 178

English edition

Legislation

Volume 491 July 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 of 28 June 2006 laying down detailed rules of application for the 2006/2007, 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 marketing years for the import and refining of sugar products under certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector | 24 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards the management of the Community market in sugar and the quota system | 39 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 of 28 June 2006 laying down detailed rules of application for the 2006/2007, 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 marketing years for the import and refining of sugar products under certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements

1

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector

24

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards the management of the Community market in sugar and the quota system

39

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130004 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130004 COA: 264344 Wayne CC: 04-003310-01 ROBERT FRANKLIN MATLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, David M Long, Jnr., President and Chief Executive Officer, of Biofield Corp.
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
     June 30, 2003 (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 or 78o(d)); and

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


Date: August 14, 2003                  By: /s/ DAVID M. LONG
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           David M. Long, Jr., M.D., Ph.D.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)


                                       22
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.5








December 8, 2016


Stacia Andersen
******
******




Dear Stacia: 


We are writing to confirm our recent discussions regarding your May 19, 2016 Separation Agreement with your prior employer. 


As you know and as we have discussed, the Separation Agreement contains a provision that states that it prohibits you from recruiting, soliciting or enticing, directly or indirectly, for employment, any employee of your prior employer or any of its affiliated companies, absent written authorization signed by an authorized officer of your prior employer (the “Provision”). The Provision states that it is effective through December 31, 2017.


Abercrombie believes that the Provision is potentially unenforceable.  Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, Abercrombie expects that you will abide by the Provision.  In that regard, you have confirmed that you have not recruited, solicited, or enticed any employee of your prior employer to become an employee of Abercrombie, and that you will not do so through the end of December 31, 2017. 


More specifically, as we have discussed, you have confirmed that: 


		
	•
	You have not directly or indirectly recruited, solicited, or enticed any person employed by your prior employer to become an employee of Abercrombie; 




		
	•
	You have not identified any person employed by your prior employer as a potential recruit to any person employed by or on behalf of Abercrombie; 




		
	•
	You have been instructed by Abercrombie not to directly or indirectly recruit, solicit, or entice any person employed by your prior employer to become an employee of Abercrombie; 




		
	•
	To the extent Abercrombie (without your input) recruits any employee of your prior employer (a “Recruit”), you have been instructed to have no direct or indirect contact with any Recruit about his or her prospective employment until he or she has been offered employment by Abercrombie, and has accepted such employment; 




		
	•
	A “wall” has been erected preventing you from discussing any Recruit’s recruitment and interview process with anyone employed by or on behalf of Abercrombie. 













Given the measures taken by Abercrombie and by you, we believe that you are in complete compliance with the Provision.  We believe that any litigation filed regarding the Provision would be meritless, and defeated.  However, regardless of its merits, there is still a possibility that litigation could be filed.  


Accordingly, given your representations regarding your compliance with the Provision, and the measures taken by Abercrombie and you to ensure compliance with the Provision, in the event that litigation regarding the Provision is filed or threatened,  Abercrombie will help you defend those legal proceedings, and will indemnify you and hold you harmless from any loss resulting from such legal proceedings.  


Stacia, we appreciate your assistance and candor in discussing this matter.  


Very Truly Yours, 
 	
	
	/s/ John Gabrielli

	John Gabrielli



	SVP- Human Resources
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

 

Reference is herebymade to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1,2014, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTOCAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC as OperatingAdvisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM2014-UBS5 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section10.11 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.      To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
usx10a




	Craig W. Conners	3425 Wilshire Terrace
	A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION	San Diego, California 92101
	Certified Public Accountant	Telephone (619) 230-0300
	 	 
	 	 
	June 18, 2002	 
	 	 
	Securities and Exchange Commission	 
	Washington, DC 20549	 
	 	 
	Re: UshowUs Co. Inc.	 








We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of UshowUs Co., Inc. on Form SB-1, of our report dated February 21, 2002 on the financial statements of UshowUs Co., Inc. appearing in the prospectus, which is part of this registration statement.



Further, we consent to the reference under the heading "Experts" in such prospectus.






	Yours truly,
	 
	\s\ Craig W. Conners
	Attorney at Law








C -1






Page 56
#### Joe E. TIMMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20037.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Sept. 15, 1966.

Decided Sept. 30, 1966.

Mr. Roger A. Clark, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Mr. Edward T. Miller, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and William H. Collins, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Dean W. Determan, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before Danaher, Burger and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal from a conviction of housebreaking and larceny presents two claims of error in the conduct of the trial. One has to do with the sustaining of an objection to a defense question assertedly designed to elicit from a prosecution witness the fact of a prior criminal conviction. It appears that, at the time the question was asked, defense counsel did not know whether there was such a conviction in fact, and the question thus lacked any foundation. The matter was not pressed; and, in any event, the strength of the Government’s case, apart from the witness in question, was such as to render the attempted impeachment of a significance not to be equated with reversibility.

This last consideration applies with similar force to the other point. It is said that hearsay testimony was permitted to come in over objection, which testimony was not only incompetent in itself but which contradicted earlier testimony given directly by the declarant. The testimony, if hearsay at all, was of the most technical kind; and the declarant was a witness who had already testi*326fied and who was available for further examination. Moreover, the alleged contradiction is not so clear to us as it is asserted to be by appellant. The witness, who was presented as having taken appellant in a car to a certain store to sell the stolen property, had said at the trial that he had indicated generally to the police where the store was, but could not now remember its name or exact street address. A police officer later testified that the witness had pointed out to him a particular store. We are not persuaded that the admission of this testimony rendered appellant’s trial unfair.

Affirmed.