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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 25

Providing for acceptance of a statue of Jack Swigert, presented by the

State of Colorado, for placement in National Statuary Hall, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 25, 1997

Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado (for himself, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. MCINNIS,

and Mr. BOB SCHAFFER) submitted the following concurrent resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for acceptance of a statue of Jack Swigert, presented by the State of Colorado, for placement in National Statuary Hall, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That (a) the statue of Jack Swigert, fur3 nished by the State of Colorado for placement in National

4 Statuary Hall in accordance with section 1814 of the Re5 vised Statutes of the United States (40 U.S.C. 187), is

6 accepted in the name of the United States, and the thanks

7 of the Congress are tendered to the State of Colorado for

8 providing this commemoration of one of its most eminent

9 personages.
2

•HCON 25 IH

1 (b) The State of Colorado is authorized to use the

2 rotunda of the Capitol on May 22, 1997, at 11 o’clock,

3 ante meridiem, for a presentation ceremony for the statue.

4 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board

5 shall take such action as may be necessary with respect

6 to physical preparations and security for the ceremony.

7 (c) The statue shall be displayed in the rotunda of

8 the Capitol for a period of not more than six months, after

9 which period the statue shall be moved to its permanent

10 location in National Statuary Hall.

11 SEC. 2. The transcript of proceedings of the cere12 mony shall be printed, under the direction of the Joint

13 Committee on the Library, as a House document, with il14 lustrations and suitable binding. In addition to the usual

15 number, there shall be printed 6,555 copies of the docu16 ment, of which 450 copies shall be for the use of the

17 House of Representatives, 105 copies shall be for the use

18 of the Senate, 3,500 copies shall be for the use of the Rep19 resentatives from Colorado, and 2,500 copies shall be for

20 the use of the Senators from Colorado.

21 SEC. 3. The Clerk of the House of Representatives

22 shall transmit a copy of this concurrent resolution to the

23 Governor of Colorado.

Æ
Stock Agreement


 


This Stock Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of December
15, 2017, confirms our understanding with respect to the issuance of Common Stock of Liberated Syndication Inc. (the “Company”)
to John Smith (the “Director”) with respect to the matters set forth herein.


 


The Board of Directors has awarded 200,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock (the “Stock”), subject to certain milestones and forfeiture clauses, to the Director. In an effort to
incentivize the Directors, the Board of Directors has set forth the following milestones and forfeiture clauses for these shares
of stock.


 


1. $5.00 per share


When the Company obtains an average of $5.00 per share closing price (adjusted
for stock splits) for any 10 consecutive trading days, the Director will retain 50% of the stock (100,000 shares), if obtained
within 30 months.


 


2. $7.00 per share


When the Company obtains an average of $7.00 per share closing price (adjusted
for stock splits) for any 10 consecutive trading days, the Director will retain 50% of the stock (100,000 shares), if obtained
within 36 months.


 


The effect of this grant on the market cap of the Company will NOT be taken
into consideration in attaining the milestone goals for the stock agreement dated April 13, 2017 between John Smith and Liberated
Syndication Inc.


 


 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:


 


John Smith


 


 


By:___________________________________________________


Name: John Smith


 


 


Liberated Syndication Inc.


 


 


By:_____________________________________________________


Name: Chris Spencer


Title: Chairman of the Board of Directors
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2427

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Jackie Harris lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________ Submitted: July 9, 2021 Filed: July 20, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Jackie Harris appealed pro se the judgment entered by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.containing an appeal waiver. Because there was an issue whether the appeal was

timely filed, we appointed counsel who then moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver and challenging the factual basis for the firearm count of conviction. Assuming the issue is properly before us, we conclude the district court did not err in determining that there was a factual basis for Harris’s plea to the firearm count based on the stipulated facts, the undisputed facts in the presentence report, Harris’s statements at his plea hearing, and the district court’s colloquy with him. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3); United States v. Christenson, 653 F.3d 697, 700 (8th Cir. 2011) (plain error review); United States v. Spencer, 439 F.3d 905, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2006). We granted Harris an extension of time in which to file a pro se supplemental brief and have carefully considered that brief. Most of the issues he raises fall squarely within the scope of his appeal waiver. The assertion that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was tainted by the ineffective assistance of counsel might fall outside the waiver, but the assertion is contrary to his sworn statements at the change-of-plea hearing and is therefore not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 & n.3 Cir. 2010). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
July 27, 2017

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MILLARD JOSEPH KIRBY, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MILLARD'S 

TOBACCOS, Appellant

NO. 14-17-00484-CV V.

ALIEF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on March 22, 2017. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Millard Joseph Kirby, Individually and d/b/a Millard's Tobaccos.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
(logo) CWCapital

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

**Annual Statement as toCompliance**

**For the Period of January1, 2016 to December 31, 2016**

 

**MSBAM 2014-C19 **

** **

In accordance with Item 1123of Regulation AB and****with the requirements detailed in §13.9 of thePooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for theabove-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital AssetManagement LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, isproviding this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following:

 

(A)         a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year orportion thereof (the "Reporting Period") and of CWCAM’sperformance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’ssupervision and; 

 

(B)          to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us.  

 

Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

 

 

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone

President             

 

 

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814

www.cwcapital.com
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

December 5,2008

 

CharlesT. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern CaliforniaBancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

a.               thatthis quarterly report  on Form 10-Q/A,Amendment 1 for the period ended September 30, 2008 fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

b.              thatinformation contained in this Form 10-Q/A, Amendment 1  for the period ended September 30, 2008fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr. |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   | Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer               |
|   |   | and President                         |

 

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 18 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES R. KILGORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 98-1352

v. (D.C. No. 98-D-1371) DONICE NEAL, Warden; CATHIE HOLST, Legal Supervisor; MIKE VETRANO, Legal Assist; and SAUL TRUJILLO, Chairman Parole Board, (D. Colo.)

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining Plaintiff-Appellant’s briefs and th e appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff appeals the district c ourt’s dismissal of his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claimed that several of-2-

his constitutional rights were violated: He was de nied parole for exercising his First Amendment rights; he was denied due process and equal protection at a parole hearing; and he has been denied access to th e courts, which he claims also violated his rights of equal protection and due pro cess. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim of right of access to the courts as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Additionally, the court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s claim that he was unconstitut ionally denied parole because it is not cognizable under section 1983 pursuant to He ck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and Crow v. Penry , 102 F.3d 1086, 1087 (10th Cir. 1996). After reviewing Plaintiff’s briefs and the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that Plai ntiff failed to state a claim under section 1983. The court properly dismissed Plainti ff’s claim of access to the courts and properly dismissed without prejudice his denial of parole claims. Accordingly, we affirm the decisions of the distric t court for substantially the same reasons stated in the court’s Order filed Augu st 28, 1998.
AFFIRMED

. Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
DISMISS; Opinion Filed March 24, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00539-CV

VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA, Appellant

V.

SCOTT LEE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-01394-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang 

Opinion by Justice Moseley

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated July 8, 2013, we notified 

appellant the time for filing his brief had expired. We directed appellant to file both his brief and 

an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file his brief and an 

extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, 

appellant has not filed his brief, an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b)(c).

/ Jim Moseley/

130539F.P05 JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA, Appellant

No. 05-13-00539-CV V.

SCOTT LEE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-01394-E.

Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley. 

Justices Francis and Lang participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee SCOTT LEE recover his costs of this appeal from 

appellant VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA.

Judgment entered this 24th day of March, 2014.

/Jim Moseley/

JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           503,098
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                          44
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 649,188
<CASH>                                          10,907
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           2,517,992
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         132,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,719,447
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,834,358
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 140,194
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           41,732
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     255,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,719,447
<PREMIUMS>                                      77,180
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             11,087
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (3,125)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   2,515
<BENEFITS>                                      72,468
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      2,823
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             6,010
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,356
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,958
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,398
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,398
<EPS-BASIC>                                      87.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    87.96
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marco WIGFALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4455

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 22, 2018

Simon Massie, MASSIE LAW PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, UNITED *211STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marco Wigfall appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 15 months’ imprisonment. Wigfall argues bn appeal that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” *United States v. Webb,*738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” *United States v. Thompson,*595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). “[A] revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court sufficiently states a proper basis for its conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” *United States v. Slappy,*872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

Applying these standards, we find that Wigfall’s sentence is not unreasonable, much less plainly so. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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*
## NO. 12-09-00220-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

LAKES HA BLOUNT, § APPEAL F ROM THE 188TH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATEOFTEX

AS, APP ELL EE § GR EG G C OU NT Y, TEX

AS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM This a p p e a l i s b e in g d is mi s s e d f o r w a n t o f ju r is d ic ti o n . A p p e ll a n t att e mp ts to ap p e a l the revoc ation of her

defe rre d adjudication community supervision. Sentence was imposed on June 5, 2009. Texa s Rule of Appellate Procedur e 26.2 provide s that an appeal is perf ecte d when notice of app e a l is fi le d with in thi rt y da ys a ft e r the da y s e nte nc e is i mpo se d o r s us pe nd e d inop e n c ou rt un le ss a mot ion for new t rial i s timely filed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a)( 1). Whe re a timely moti on for ne w trial has bee n filed, notice of appea l shall be filed within ninety days af ter the se ntence is imposed or sus pended in open court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 6. 2( a )( 2) . A pp e lla nt d id n ot f ile a mot ion fo r n e w t

ri a l. There fore , Appellant’s notice of appeal wa s d u e t o have be en filed on or befor e July 6, 2009. Howeve r, Appellant did not file her notice of appea l until J uly 8, 2009 and did not file a motion for extension of time to fi l e h er n o t ice of appea l as permitted by Te xas Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 26.3. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26 .3 (a pp e llate c ou rt

ma y e xte ndtim e fo r f

ili ng no tic e of

app e a l if , w ith in fift e e n d a y s a f

te r d e a d li n e f

o r f il in g n o ti c e o f

ap p e a l, ap p e ll a n t f

il e s n o ti c e o f

ap p e a l i n tria l c ourt and motion complying with Texas Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 10.5( b) in appe llate court). On July 15, 2009, this c ourt notified Appellant that he r notice of appea l was untimely and2

that there was no timely moti on for a n extension of time to file the notice of appe al as pe rmitted by rule 26.3. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or bef ore Ju ly 2 7, 20 09 , th e inf

orma tio n f

ile d in thi s app e a l wa s a me nd e d to sh ow the jurisd ic tio n o f this c ou rt . The de adline imposed in our July 15, 2009 notice has now pa ssed, and Appe llant has neither show n the jurisdiction of this court or other wise re sponded to the notice. Because this court has no authority to a l l o w t h e late f iling of a notice of a

ppeal e xcept a s provided by rule 26.3, the appe al must be dismiss ed. See Sla ton v . St ate , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ); Ol

iv o v. Sta te , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) . Acc ordingly, the app e a l is dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction

. Opinion delivere d July 31, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBLISH)
No. D-2673.

#### In re Disbarment of Reed.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 972.]